MALAYA MARUTI INDUSTRIES Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER OPERATION APSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is an industry represented by its proprietor, who is a Mechanical Engineering graduate, who is also a Technocrat trained under Entrepreneur Development Programme during 1984. He started the complainant-industry for the manufacture of briquetted fuel on 24.3.1984 which is a substitute to the coal which falls under priority sector group of industries declared by the Central Government. The opposite parties 4 and 5 have sanctioned loan for running the industry. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, who has overall control over the industrial estate, sanctioned the premises for running the industry on lease-cum-sale basis in the indusrial estate, Samalkota. After obtaining necessary certificates from the Municipality, District Medical and Health Officer and Inspector of Factories, the complainant made an application to the first opposite party seeking suply of 40 H. P. and 1 K. W. lighting load which was registered on 31.12.1984. In February, 1985, the second opposite party has given a feasibility certificate. Inspite of repeated letters and reminders the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter called as 'the Board'), did not extend supply to the unit. However, it sent a letter to the petitioner advising payment of 1/3rd voluntary loan contribution Rs.13,090/- to facilitate erection of transformer and supply of power to the complainant's unit. This rule was not in existence when the complainant made the application but it was introduced in June, 1985 and as such it was not applicable in the case of the complainant. However, with a view to avoid any delay, the complainant gave his consent on 9.10.1985 and 8.11.1985 and asked for directions for payment of the said amount. No reply was received from the Board. However on 22.2.1986 the Board sent a letter to the complainant to pay a non-refundable deposit of Rs.43,115/- together with service connection charges and security deposit totalling a sum of about Rs.50,000/-. This demand is unjust and illegal as it affects young entrepreneurs badly. Realising this, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No.41, dated 15.5.1986 abolishing this scheme of collecting non-refundable deposit from Small Scale Industries. But the Board kept quite for another six months and informed the complainant in November, 1986 that power connection has been sanctioned. The Board again slept over the matter for six months without responding to the requests made by the complainant for power supply. However, in June, 1987 the Board informed the complainant's unit that the erection of transformer to supply power to the complainant's unit will be delayed further due to shortage of their staff. The complainant was advised to get the transformer installed by himself and that the Board would supply the required material and would also pay the erection charges. Even though the complainant agreed the Board again delayed in supplying the material to the complainant and ultimately the complainant was able to get the installation work completed by September, 1987. The Board did not ensure power supply to him through the new transformer. But the power supply was given through an old power transformer. Due to this the complainant faced low voltage and inadequate power supply from the old transformer due to which 5 H. P. motor and main supply wires and starter in the complainant's industry got burnt and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.5,000/-. When the power was supplied through the old transformer, the exercise of erection of new transformer, at his cost is an exercise in sheer futility. During the year 1984 the complainant was supplied 7.5 H. P. power against the required 40 H. P. purely on temporary basis, for a period of one year from 20.10.1985 to 20.3.1986 and from 3.9.1986 to 3.3.1987 only for which purpose the Board collected a sum of Rs.5,650/- from the complainant by way of deposit. It was not refunded to the complainant. On account of this erratic inadequate supply and negligence or supine indifference on the part of the department in providing adequate supply, the unit could not function properly and ultimately a situation has arisen forcing its closure in December, 1987. The complainant could not repay the principal and interest to a tune of Rs.8 lakhs to its creditors, the opposite parties 4 and 5. As per the project report if there had been adequate supply of power, there would have been a net provit of Rs.13,000/- per month. As a result of non-supply of power the unit sustained losses to a tune of Rs.8,32,000/-. The fourth opposite party referred the complainant industry for financial assistance for its revival through Sick Industries Rehabilitation Scheme. A Committee inspected the complainant's industry and submitted a detailed report on 8.3.1990 to the fourth opposite party which shows that the Board is responsible for the closure of the complainant's unit. Therefore, the complainant seeks damages of Rs.8,32,000/- with interest against the opposite parties 1 to 3 by way of this complaint.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 it is stated that the complainant made an application for supply of 40 H. P. plus 1 K. W. industrial load at Industrial Estate, Samalkot on 31.12.1984 and no application was filed on 31.10.1984. On receipt of the application, the complainant was asked to submit consent letter for payment of the amount covered by the estimate to be prepared, to be submitted to the higher office on 10.4.1985. However, the petitioner sent his consent letter in July, 1985. He was asked to pay 1/3rd of the voluntary loan contribution amount of Rs.13,090/- refundable after five years. The contention of the complainant that this scheme came into existence in June, 1985 is incorrect. This scheme was introduced through B. P. M. S.423 dated 26.5.1976 which was replaced through B. P. Ms.693 dated 19.9.1985 whereunder payment of service line charges were introduced. In view of the change of the policy effected by the Board, the complainant was addressed a letter on 22.2.1986 inter alia requesting him to give his consent to pay the cost of 100 KVA distribution transformer or in the alternative to procure the transformer by himself and pay a further sum of Rs.15,605/-. However, the petitioner expressed his inability by a letter dated 19.2.1986. As he could not make payment for service line charges, the work could not be commenced. However, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No.41 dated 15.5.1986 exempting the small scale industries from payment of service line charges. Accordingly the estimate was processed and sanction order was obtained on 6.11.1986, and the work order issued on 8.11.1986, laying the service line including erection of transformer was completed in July, 1987 and the service was released on 17.8.1987. This estimate which was sanctioned vide SDR 70/86-87 covered two industrial services, one for the complainant and another for Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Flour Mill. The said two industrial services were released from the newly erected transformer and not from the old existing transformer as alleged by the complainant. At no point of time the complainant nor Sri Kanaka Mahalaxmi Flour Mill complained of the low voltage from transformers. It is only on account of the inability on the part of the complainant to make payment of requisite charges liable to be paid under the changed policy of the Board, the execution of work for extension of supply of power to the complainant could not be commenced. The complainant, who failed to pay the cost of service laying charges, waited till the Government issued Government Order exempting from payment of service line charges by the small scale industries. The contention of the complainant that due to release of supply from old transformer his 5 H. P. motor and other equipment was burnt is totally false. There is no delay on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 in extending supply to the complainant and the delay if at all is his own making. The deposit of Rs.5,650/- made by the complainant before the release of supply was on account of the temporary supply for 7.5 H. P. load. The same was released and the deposit amount was adjusted towards monthly consumption charges. The allegation that the report of Committee finding fault with the APSEB is totally misconceived. Neither the Board nor the opposite parties 1 to 3 are aware of the said report, and the same in any event is not binding on them. No other details are given how Rs.8,30,000/- was arrived at which is claimed as compensation. It is stated that the complaint is barred by time since it was filed four years after the closure of the industry. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

(3.) No separate counter was filed on behalf of the fourth opposite party. The 5th opposite party filed separate counter. It is denied that the complainant has given an application on 31.10.1984 for supply of power. In all other respects the facts as narrated by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in their counter-affidavit has been reiterated and finally requested that the complaint may be dismissed.