HP State Electricity Board

[admin]

M/S Umesh Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. Kala Amb, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P.

… Complainant.
Versus


The HP State Electricity Board, through its Secretary, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla.

…Opposite Party.

Coram

Shri Pritam Singh (District Judge) President.
Ms. Vanita Singh, Member (Female)
…………………………………………………………………………

For the complainant: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party: Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.


O R D E R
Pritam Singh (District Judge) President:- This order shall dispose of complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is alleged that the complainant is a company registered under the companies Act and this complaint has been filed by its Director Shri Brijesh Kohli. That the complainant-company was earlier sanctioned electricity load of 310.23 KW which was later on reduced to 176 KW keeping in view the operational need of the factory. That prior to May 2000 the OP-Board had categorized the industries under three categories viz small scale industry, medium industry and large scale industry for the purpose of charging energy consumption. That in April, 2000 the categorization was revised and small industry and medium industry were clubbed together for the purpose of charging of energy under category LS-II whereas, large scale industries were categorized as LS-I. It is further alleged that the industrial concern of the complainant was required to be categorized under category LS-II for the purpose of electricity consumption charges, but the OP-Board instead categorized it under category LS-II and started charging energy consumption charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per KW instead of Rs.105/- per KW as applicable to LS-II category. As such, complainant-industrial concern was compelled to pay additional charges of Rs.3,05,390/- from June 2000 to January, 2002 to OP-Board and despite repeated representation the OP-Board did not place the complainant-industrial concern in category LS-II for the purpose of electricity tariff. Hence, feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the act of the OP-Board, the complainant perforce filed this complaint against the OP-Board.
2. The complaint is resisted by OP-Board who while filing reply took some preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Forum to try this complaint. On merits, they alleged that the complainant-industrial concern was manufacturing utensils of stainless steel for which it was having rolling and re-rolling mill and as such electricity tariff was rightly charged from complainant-industrial concern under category LS-I. Thus, there being no deficiency in service, the complaint is sought to be dismissed. Thereafter the parties led evidence in support of their plea/counter plea.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.
4. It may be stated that undisputedly the complainant-industrial concern being medium industry was manufacturing utensils of stainless steel and earlier the OP-Board had sanctioned electricity load of 310.23 KW for operating factory, which was later on reduced to 176 KW. It is alleged that in the month of April, 2000, the category of the industry was revised by the OP-Board and the small scale industry and medium industry were clubbed together for charging energy consumption under category LS-II, and large scale industries were categorized under LS-I. That the complainant-industrial concern was required to be kept under category LS-II for the purpose of charging energy consumption, but the OP-Board instead placed the complainant-industrial concern in the category of LS-I, and charged energy at the rate of Rs.250/- per KW, instead of Rs.105/- per KW, thereby the complainant-industrial concern was compelled to pay additional sum of Rs.3,05,390/- from June 2000 to January, 2002.. It is also specifically alleged by the complainant-concern that M/S Him Ispat Ltd. Kandrodi having electricity consumer account bearing No.1K-194 having rolling mill was categorized by the OP-Board under category LS-II and the tariff was charged under LS-II category from it, whereas this company is having electricity sanctioned load more-than the sanctioned load of the complainant-industrial concern.
5. However, according to the OP-HPSEB, the complainant-concern being mini steel mill is manufacturing utensils of stainless steel and is falling in the category LS-I under large industrial power supply for mini steel mills/steel rolling and re-rolling mills for the purpose of charging tariff. As such, the energy consumption charges were required to be charged from the complainant-concern under category LS-I and not under category LS-II. They have also placed on record the Notification Annexure R-1 dated 20.04.2000 in this behalf and alleged that the complainant-concern has been rightly charged the energy consumption under category LS-I for disputed period.
6. But, it may be stated that the industrial concern manufacturing stainless utensils cannot be kept in category of company which are mini steel mills and steel rolling and re-rolling mills and the ordinary meaning assigned to still and iron cannot be assigned to stainless steel. On this point we are supported by case law authority as reported in 1983 U.P.T.C.-807, in case Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow versus M/S Industrial Mill Store, decided on 04.01.1980, relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant. No counter authority is cited on behalf of the OP-Board. As the complainant-industrial concern is neither mini steel mill nor steel rolling and re-rolling mill, as it is manufacturing utensils of stainless steel. As such, it cannot be placed in the category of company having mini steel mills or steel rolling or steel re-rolling mill. Resultantly, the energy consumption charges could not be charged from the complainant-industrial concern under category LS-I.
7. Moreover, it is specifically alleged by the complainant-industrial concern in para No.4 of complaint that M/S Him Ispat Ltd. Kandrodi Nurpur (Kangra) is rolling mill, but it has been kept by the OP-Board in the category of LS-II and the energy consumption charges are also being charged under category LS-II. Whereas, the complainant-industrial concern which is manufacturing utensils of stainless still has been illegally categorized under the category LS-I and the tariff for energy consumption has been charged under category LS-I. In reply to this para, the OP-Board in corresponding para 4 of the reply has alleged that as far as tariff for M/S Him Ispat Limited Kandrodi is concerned, the same is different consumer and case of that concern is totally different and cannot be compared with the case of the complainant-industrial concern. But, it may be stated that nothing has been brought on record by the OP-Board in support of their this plea that M/S Him Ispat Ltd. Kandrodi is a different consumer and the case of that concern is totally different and it cannot be compared with the case of the complainant-concern, whereas, the sanctioned energy load of this concern, i.e. M/S Him Ispat Ltd. Kandrodi is undisputedly higher than the sanctioned energy load of 176 KW of complainant-industrial concern. Moreover, undisputedly the complainant-industrial concern was earlier medium scale industry and that small scale industry and medium scale industry were clubbed together. Therefore, the energy consumption charges were required to be charged under category LS-II from the complainant-concern, and not under LS-I category. But, the complainant-industrial concern was placed in category LS-I and tariff for energy consumption was charged illegally under category LS-I because it is not having mini steel mills/steel -rolling and re-rolling mills. Hence, tariff prescribed vide Notification Annexure R-1 under category LS-I is not applicable to complainant-industrial concern.
8. As regards the plea of the OP-Board that the complainant-industrial concern is commercial concern and it does not fall under the definition of the consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint is not maintainable, it may be stated that the word ‘consumer’ has been defined in The Electricity Act, 2003 which means that;
“consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be;
Similarly, the word ‘distribution system’ under this Act has been defined which means;
“distribution system” means the system of wires and associated facilities between the delivery points on the transmission lines or the generating station connection and the point of connection to the installation of the consumers;
The ‘person’ has also been defined in The Electricity Act which includes:-
“person” shall include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person;
Again word ‘Premises’ have also been defined in The Electricity Act, 2003 which includes:-
any land, building or structure;

The word ‘Supply’ has also been defined in the Act ibid which includes:-
“supply”, in relation to electricity, means the sale of electricity to a licensee or consumer;

9. It may be stated that according to complainant-industrial concern, it is a private partnership firm and all its partners are running this industrial concern for earning their livelihood. Therefore, the complainant-industrial concern falls in the category of consumer as defined in The Electricity Act, 2003. Moreover, the complainant-industrial concern is running medium scale industry manufacturing utensils of stainless steel. Hence, its electricity connection cannot be disconnected on the ground that it is not a ‘consumer’ and is using the electricity for commercial purpose. If the person/industrial concern is using the electricity for running its industry, he is definitely consumer for the purpose of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On this point we are supported by the case law authority as reported in II (1992) 819 CPJ Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in case Sub Divisional Officer, HPSEB versus Sita Ram, decided on 12.06.19992, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant-industrial concern. No counter authority has been cited on behalf of the OP-Board. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the plea of the OP-Board that the complainant-industrial concern is not a consumer as it is commercial concern and the complaint is not maintainable.
10. For the foregoing reason, and discussion, we are constrained to hold that the complainant-industrial concern was wrongly categorized under category LS-I by OP-Board and tariff for energy consumption has been wrongly charged from the complainant-concern under category LS-I for the disputed period. As such, the excess energy consumption charges amounting to Rs.3,05,390/- charged from the complainant-industrial concern for disputed period by illegally categorizing it under category LS-I are liable to be refunded to complainant-industrial concern.
11. As a sequel of the above, we allow this complaint thereby directing the OP-Board to refund Rs.3,05,390/- to the complainant-industrial concern alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, which happens to be filed on 09.10.2002, till making full payment of aforesaid amount. In addition to this, the OP-Board shall also pay Rs.3,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant-industrial concern. This order shall be complied with by the OP-Board within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per procedure and rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
12. Announced on this the 29th day of April, 2009 at Shimla as the complaint being time bound and is required to be disposed of before 30.04.2009 as per the direction of the Hon’ble HP State Consumer Commission.

[adv.singh]

FIRST APPEAL NO.469/2007.

DATE OF DECISION: 20.11.2009

In the matter of :

H.P. State Electricity Board, Rakkar, Una District through its Superintending Engineer, Rakkar Colony, Una, H.P.

… … Appellant.

Versus

Mehar Chand son of Shri Mela Ram, R/O Dharamshala Mahantan, Tehsil and District Una, H.P. presently residing in the House of Shri Neel Kanth, Village Bharolian Khurd, Mahalat, Tehsil and District Una, H.P.

… … Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellant: Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate with Sh. Rajinder Singh, S.D.O., HPSEB Sub Division No.II with Shri Raman Kumar, Senior Assistant from the said office, who have been identified as such by Mr. Ranjan.

For the Respondent: Mr. Virendra Sharma, Advocate.

O R D E R

Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



1. When hearing in this case commenced, learned Counsel for the respondent on instructions received from his client submitted that the house in question where electricity meter was installed and was illegally removed has since been vacated by his client. As such, now the controversy is within very narrow compass. District Forum below while allowing Consumer Complaint No.156/2004 on 5.9.2007 has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Respondent who was complainant before the District Forum below has not filed any appeal. This shows that he is satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum below. Mr. Ranjan submitted that even grant of compensation as well as litigation cost is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and he thus prayed for setting aside the same while allowing this appeal.



2. We are constrained to observe that for a petty sum of Rs.6,000/-, appellant-Board has dragged the respondent to this litigation which according to us could be very conveniently avoided. In these circumstances, we see no reason to adjudicate upon the submission urged by Mr. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the appellant. We may clarify here that the appellant is not a private litigant. As a matter of public policy, it is expected to minimize litigation which it can legitimately do. Once this conclusion is arrived at, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. This appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.1500/-.



All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.



Mr. B.S. Ranjan, learned Counsel for the appellant has undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary at Shimla as per rules and Mr. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that copy of this order free of cost as per rules may be sent to him at his address, District Courts, Una. This prayer is accepted. Office will do the needful.

Una,

November 20, 2009.

[adv.singh]

Appeal No. 475/2009.

Date of Decision 18.12.2009

In the matter of:

Sh. Deepak Sood son of Sh. Jagan Nath,

R/o VPO Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, HP.

… … Appellant.
Versus

1. H.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4,

through its Secretary;

2. The Executive Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity

Board, Electricity Division, Chopal, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla HP;

3. The Assistant Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board,

Electrical Sub Division, Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, HP;

4. Shri Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Nikka Ram R/o Vill. Shirguldhar, PO Kedi,

Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, HP.

… … Respondents.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting? No.


For the Appellant.: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents 1 to 3. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

For the Respondent No.4: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.

O R D E R

Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).

Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel who is the standing counsel of HP State Electricity Board was directed to appear in this appeal, accordingly he has put in appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

2. Looking to the controversy involved in this appeal, as well as to the chequered history of the case, we feel that the complaint No. 305/2009 filed by respondent No.4 against the appellant, as well as respondent Nos.1 to 3 needs to be disposed of at the earliest. Reason being that if he is entitled to get electricity connection in the premises in question, then respondents 1 to 3 must do the needful at the earliest. And in case if he is not entitled to the same, in such a situation he must know the fate of his claim.

3. Record of the complaint file was summoned from the District Forum below. A perusal of the impugned order shows, that for all purposes application for the grant of interim relief has been disposed of, despite having called for the objections, if any may to be filed on the date fixed for that purpose. It is well known principal of law that interim relief in mandatory form is an exception and is not to be passed in a routine manner.

4. When this matter was taken up for admission, number of contentions was raised in support of this appeal by Mr. Mohinder Verma as well as by Mr. Peeyush Verma who waived notice on behalf of respondent No.4. However we feel that as already observed complaint needs to be disposed of at the earliest. At this learned counsel for the parties agreed with the order dated 16.9.2009 may be set aside, and it was stated at the bar by Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 that he shall prepare the reply to the complaint and deliver its copy against receipt to Mr. Peeyush Verma learned counsel for the respondent No.4, as well as to Mr. Mohinder Verma learned counsel for the appellant on or before 29.12.2009. Thereafter in the like manner, it was stated by Mr. Peeyush Verma learned counsel for respondent No.4, that he shall prepare the rejoinder as well as evidence if any, and shall deliver the same also against receipt to Mr. Mohinder Verma learned counsel for the appellant, as well as to Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel by or before 10.1.2010. Thereafter by or before 20.1.2010 appellant and respondents 1 to 3 shall supply the copy of their evidence if any if they want to file, to Mr. Peeyush Verma also against receipt. Copies of rebuttal evidence, if any will be given by Mr. Peeyush Verma to Mr. Mohinder Verma on behalf of the appellant, as well as to Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel by or before 30.1.2010.

5. It was stated by learned counsel for the parties, that the case is listed on 24.2.2010 for filing of reply by respondents No.1 to 3. They agreed that the reply, rejoinder as well as evidence will be placed on record on 24.2.2010 by them and they shall argue the matter before the District Forum below on this date positively. It is further agreed between the parties through their learned counsel, that in case anyone of them does not adhere to the above schedule of exchanging pleadings as well as evidence right to file the same of such defaulting party shall stand closed. And their respective clients shall not make any grievance in that behalf, either in the appeal or in the revision as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the event of any of them intending to approach these authorities under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6. District Forum below is directed to finally hear this matter on 24.2.2010, the date already fixed. Appeal is disposed of subject to the above directions after setting aside the impugned order with the consent of learned counsel for the parties given by them on behalf of their respective clients. Office will ensure that record be transmitted well before the date fixed.

All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this Order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.

[adv.singh]

F.A. No. 109 of 2009 Decided on 2.12.2009.

1. Executive Engineer, H.P.S.E.B.,

Electrical Sub-Division-Haroli,

P.O. & Tehsil, Haroli, District Una, H.P.

2. S.D.O., H.P.S.E.B.,

Electrical Sub-Division-Haroli,

P.O. & Tehsil-Haroli, District Una, H.P.

....Appellants.
Versus

Sh. Balram Kumar Kaushal son of Sh. Satpal,

Proprietor M/s Kaushal Cold Store,

Village Bhadsali, Tehsil & District Una, H.P. …..Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting ?

For the Appellants. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh Chandel,

Advocate.

For the Respondent. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate

vice Mr. Naresh Thakur, Advocate.
ORDER
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President.


1. Appellants are aggrieved from the order passed by District Forum, Una, in Consumer Complaint No. 64/2007, on 10.3.2009. While allowing the complaint, following order has been passed :-



“Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the law as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the sundry charges claimed by opposite party No.2 as per copy of bill copy annexure C-9 and notice dated 10.3.2005 copy annexure C-8 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the opposite parties are not justified in claiming the said charges from the complainant. Accordinlgy, the complaint is allowed and it is held that the complainant is not liable to pay the sundry charges as per bill copy annexure C-9 and notice annexure C-8. However, there are no orders as to cost.”



2. According to the respondent sum of Rs. 3,86,099/- being claimed as arrear was not payable by him. This demand was created by the appellants against him as arrear for the period from November, 2001 to November, 2003, November 2003 to June 2004 and July, 2004. According to the appellants amongst other things respondent should have approached the Disputes Settlement Committees constituted at various levels for settlement of disputes between its Consumers and the H.P. State Electricity Board vide Notification No. 15/2002, dated 19.10.2002.



3. At this stage learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these Disputes Settlement Committees have now been rechristened as Forums for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers.



4. While challenging the above referred order passed by District Forum below, Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that assuming everything to be correct for the sake of arguments without conceding, fact remains that the demand was created on 11.9.2004 against the respondent by his clients. Complaint was filed beyond limitation prescribed U/S 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thus according to the learned counsel for the appellants on this ground alone, this appeal is bound to be succeed and consequently complaint merits dismissed, especially when no prayer for condonation of delay was made either in the complaint or by way of separate application. Above all, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, a civil suit was filed challenging the impugned demand by the respondent which was later on withdrawan un-conditionally. Thus on this ground also this appeal deserves to be allowed.



5. Faced with this situation learned counsel for the respondent submitted, that though he disputes all the pleas urged by Mr. Chandel, learned counsel for the appellants still he has instructions to withdraw the complaint out of which this appeal has arisen and his client shall approach first the Assessing Authority at Una, as the demand was provisional, and if thereafter need arises then the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the consumers constituted by the H.P.State Electricity Board by challenging the order of the Assessing Authority. He further submitted that the said Forum may not throw out the case being belated, because his client was bonafide under mistaken legal advise was prosecuting the matter before the Foras under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.



6. Keeping in view the statement made on behalf of the respodent, complaint No. 64/2007, is allowed to be withdrawn by the respondent, as a result of it, order dated 10.3.2009, becomes non-est and consequently this appeal has become infructuous, dismissed accordingly. At the same time it is clarified that the respondent will be at liberty to approach the Assessing Authority at Una first because the assessment is provisional, and if thereafter need arises, then the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers constituted by the H.P.State Electricity Board for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers like the respondent. It is clarified that claim of the respondent will not be defeated being belated by either the Assessing Authority or by the Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers. Appeal is disposed of in these terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



7. All interim orders passed from time to time shall stand vacated forthwith.



8. Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per Rules.

[adv.singh]

Consumer Complaint No: 93/2007

Date of presentation: 05.07.2007

Date of decision: 18.11.2009
Dr. R.L. Arora S/o Sh. S.L. Arora, Assistant Director Veterinary Department Reru, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. presently R/o House No. 237, Phase- III, HIMUDA Colony Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus

1. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board,

Kumar house, Shimla (H.P.)

Through its Chairman/ Secretary.

2. The Executive Engineer, HPSEB, Parwanoo,

P.O. Parwanoo, District Solan H.P.

3. The Sub- Divisional Officer (E),

HPSEB Housing Board Colony Baddi,

Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P.

…Opposite Parties

For the complainant: Mr. Raman Gupta, Advocate.



For the Opposite Party No. 1&2: Mr. T.S. Negi, Advocate vice

Mr. J.S. Kanwar, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is averred that the complainant is owner in possession of a house No.237, Phase-III, H.B. Colony Baddi, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. which was purchased by him from its previous owner Smt. Pushpa Jain. He further avers that the OPs-Board had installed a electric connection vide A/C No.3-HP 1000191, which is in the name of its previous owner, but he is paying the bill to the OPs regularly. It is further averred that he had been receiving the bills which varied from Rs.200/- to Rs.600/-. The complainant further proceeded to aver that in the month of January, 2007, he received a bill dated 10.01.2007, for Rs.12,173/-, which is alleged to be inflated and excessive, hence, the OPs were requested to rectify the same, but the OPs instead of correcting the bill, asked him to deposit the same, within 15 days. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 11.04.2007, was issued to the OPs, which also fell on deaf ears. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant-concern.

2. The OPs-Board filed reply to the complaint and raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, suppression of material facts and lack of cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that the electric meter was issued in the name of Smt. Pushpa Jain, hence, it is denied that the complainant is a consumer. They further admit that the bill amounting to Rs. 12,173/- was issued in the name of Smt. Pushpa Jain, during January, 2007 and later on, on dated 13.03.2007, a notice was served to deposit the due amount of Rs.12173/-. It is contended that after receipt of the complaint from Smt. Pushpa Jain, regarding fault in the meter, the same was checked and found in perfect working condition. Hence, it is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs-Board.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in the shape of affidavit/documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. A perusal of the bill, against which the complainant, is, aggrieved, reveals that the consumer of electricity connection as provided by the OPs-Board, is, one Smt. Pushpa Jain. Nonetheless, the complainant, assuming, if, he is or has been residing in the premises owned by the aforesaid Smt. Pushpa Jain, in whose, name, the meter has been installed, may be, for the period of his stay, in, the premises owned by Smt. Pushpa Jain and at the instance of Smt. Pushpa Jain, making payment of electricity bills, for, electricity consumed by him, during such period of stay their, yet, the grievance which may be nursed, by, any person, for, the, untenable tariff, as, demanded by the OP, was Smt. Pushpa Jain. Obviously, the complaint could have been moved only at her instance. The complainant in whose name the electricity meter, is, not installed in the premises, in which he is or may be residing, has, as such, no locus standie to agitate the matter before this Forum. Therefore, the complaint being not maintainable, is, liable to be dismissed. Hence, ordered accordingly. The learned counsel for the OPs-Board and authorized agent for the complainant, undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

[adv.singh]

Consumer Complaint No: 255/2006

Date of presentation: 05.08.2006

Date of decision: 28.12.2009
Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh S/O Shri Bhadur Singh,

R/O Village Sainj, P.O. Mandhana, Tehsil Chopal,

District Shimla, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus
1. HP State Electricity Board,

Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-5,

Through its Secretary.



2. The Executive Engineer,

HPSEB Electrical Division, Chopal,

Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.
3. The Junior Engineer,

HPSEB Electrical Sub Division Nerwa,

Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.

4. The T- Mate,

HPSEB Electrical Sub Divisional, Nerwa,

Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.

… Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, the OPs have set up their electricity transformer near the house of the complainant, on the land in the ownership and possession of the father of the complainant at, Village Sainj, Post Office Mandhana, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. It is averred that the OPs, carelessly and negligently have set up the said transformer right in the middle of the common path, little caring for the fact that the path is used by the complainant and his family members and also frequently by members of the general public, yet, the OPs have failed to provide proper fencing to the transformer, which otherwise is mandatory as per law and the OPs, are, under a legal obligations to provide proper fencing to avoid any untoward incident from taking place. The complainant further proceeded to aver, that, on 13.08.2004, at about 10 A.M. he was tending to his cows in the fields and while coming back towards his house, while he was passing on the path, near the above said transformer, he, all of a sudden experienced a serious electric shock, which was on account of some undetected leakage of electricity from the transformer, as a result of which, he suffered damage in the entire right portion of his body and fell unconscious and had to be bodily lifted and taken to the Hospital at Chopal for treatment. It is averred that, thereafter, he was referred to IGMC Shimla for specialized treatment which the complainant underwent continuously for about three months and the treatment, is, still going on from IGMC. He further averred that, owing to the electric shock, he has suffered permanent physical disability apart from the fact that his studies were adversely affected, consequently his future prospectus of marriage and career, have also been marred. It is further averred that, he had to incur expense on his treatment, which is to continue for a considerable period. He further averred that, an FIR of the incident was recorded on 13.08.2004, and a, criminal case under section 336,337 of the Indian Penal Code came to be instituted, against the OPs No.3 & 4 in the court of learned ACJM, Chopal. He further avers that, this all had happened owing to careless and negligence of the OPs, who have failed to provide proper fencing to the transformer set up by them. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in their written version to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of the complaint, and admitted the fact of installation of transformer, yet, it is denied that the transformer is installed carelessly and negligently. It is contended that, the transformer is pole mounted and is installed at 10 feet height from the ground and no one can reach to touch the same except interfered deliberately. It is contended that the complainant have fabricated and manipulated the facts and is after thought. However, the OPs undertake to maintain the transformer from safety point of view with added precaution. Hence, it is contended that their, is, any deficiency in service on their part.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at, length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in not properly maintaining the electricity transformer, so installed by them at, village Sainj, Post Office Mandhana, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., as a consequence whereof, he, all, of a sudden experienced a serious electric shock, on account of some undetected leakage of electricity from the transformer. On the contrary, the OPs, have repudiated the claim of the complainant, inasmuch, as, the transformer so installed by them, in the village aforesaid, is, pole-mounted and is installed at, 10 feet height from the ground, hence, no one can reach to touch the same, and there is no leakage of electricity, as such, are exculpating their liability.

6. The complainant, in support of his case, has placed on record, a, copy of the FIR dated 13.08.2004, registered against the OPs No.3 & 4 at, Police Station Chopal, which bears Annexure A-1. Annexure A-2, is, a copy of the judgment rendered by the learned ACJM, Chopal on, 07.12.2005. In addition to this, he, has also placed on record, the copies of the electricity bills, so issued by the OPs, in the name of his father, which bears Annexure A-3 & A-4, respectively. Annexure A-4, is, a copy of matriculation certificate. Annexures A-5, A-6 & A-7, and the copies of the cash memos of the medicines and prescription slips, respectively. On the other hand, the OPs have placed on record the affidavit of Er. S.K. Sood, Superintending Engineer, HPSEB, Rohru.

7. At the very out set, we, may observe that the complainant has been able to prove by adduction of cogent, convincing and apposite evidence on record, the fact, that, on 13.08.2004, he, all of sudden experienced a serious electric shock, on account of some undetected leakage of electricity from the transformer, so installed by the OPs at, village Sainj, P.O. Mandhana, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. We have, also, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that, happened owing, to, carelessness and negligence, of, the officials of the OPs, who have failed to provide proper fencing to the transformer, as, is, evident from the copy of the judgment so rendered by the learned ACJM, Chopal, on, 07.12.2005, while adjudicating upon a criminal case arising from the very same incident. Therefore, as, the officials of the OPs, have failed to provide proper fencing, to the transformer, for, deterring an egress near it, by, the local inhabitants for pre empting any causality, hence, they, cannot exculpate their liability on the score, that, the transformer, is, pole mounted and, is, installed at, a height of 10 feet, especially when, the, attribution of the complainant suffering from electrocution, is, attributed to leakage of electricity current from it, as also, when, the said fact has been clinched in a decision rendered by learned ACJM, Chopal, in, a decision rendered on, 07.12.2005, arising from the very same incident, and which decision for want of proof of its reversal by the Learned Appellate Court has to be construed to be, hence, binding, as well, as, conclusive qua, the, facts analogous to the abstract matter. Hence, it, comprises conclusive evidence qua its analogous facts, of, negligence attributed to the OPs, in its maintaining the transformer for pre empting casualty, inasmuch, as, it failed to fence it, as such, effaces, the, effect of the affidavit filed by Er. S.K. Sood.

8. Since, the, complainant resides with his father, who, is, a consumer under the OPs, he, too , while being a beneficiary of the electricity supplied by the OPs, to, the premises of the father of the complainant, which fact remains not controverted, he, hence, is to be construed to be a consumer, therefore, he is entitled to maintain the complaint, for, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, comprised in their act of not providing fencing around the transformer from where leakage of current caused simple injuries to the complainant.

9. The complainant has not been able to place on record medical proof qua suffering of permanent disability, on account the electric shock, He has also not placed on record the proof qua the sum, spent by him on transportation for receiving treatment. He has only placed on record some cash memos and the prescription slips. In the absence of definite and concrete evidence qua his being afflicted with permanent disability attributable to the incident, we, are not inclined to award him the sum, so sought by him under the relief clause. Certainly, on account of electric shock so suffered by him, he had, to, visit IGMC for medical treatment. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, it, shall be appropriate to award a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of expenses of conveyance in his visiting IGMC frequently, also on account of pain and suffering. Since, the electric shock was suffered by the complainant, on, 13.08.2004, and, he, is, still under treatment, and this fact having remained un-repulsed and un-rebutted, hence, it shall be appropriate and expedient in the interest of justice, if the complainant, is, held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- against the claimed sum of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, in all the complainant, is, held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the OPs, besides interest and litigation costs.

10. As a sequitor to above, we allow this complaint and direct the OPs, through its Secretary to indemnify the complainant to a total sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the compliant, i.e., 05.08.2006, till actual payment is made. The litigation cost is, quantified at Rs.2,500/- payable by the OPs, to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the shall also be liable to pay punitive damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Hence, the compliant stands disposed of in the above terms.

11. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.