JAIPUR VIDYUT VITERAN NIGAM LTD Vs. RAM KHILADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OPPOSITE party is the petitioner before us. Respondent-complainant approached District Forum on 27. 1. 1994 with a complaint that though he had applied to the petitioner on 22. 11. 1990 for shifting of his electric connection from one tube-well to another this had not been done all this period causing him great loss. He said he was unable to irrigate his fields as the tube-well where the electric connection had been provided had dried up. He complained of gross deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) IN the complaint complainant had sought for setting aside of the bill amount of Rs. 5,625 towards alleged theft of electricity; and claimed Rs. 10,000 as crop loss and Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. In fact, the electric connection was in the name of Amolak, father of the complainant. Complainant was his sole surviving heir. Amolak died on 15. 5. 1993 and till then no action had been taken on his application for shifting of the electric connection. On 29. 1. 1993 a bill of Rs. 5,625 was given to Amolak on the ground of theft of electricity by him to his tube-well. It is stated that this theft was discovered on 21. 1. 1993 when vigilance team of the petitioner visited the well of Amolak. First Information Report was lodged against Amolak on 29. 1. 1993. State Commission had noticed that Police could not find it was a case of theft and submitted a final report. It was submitted by Mr. Moorjani, learned Counsel for the petitioner the Police could not submit a final report as Amolak died in the meanwhile. When we asked Mr. Moorani that the period between the lodging of the FIR and death of Amolak was about four months and what did the Police investigaten during this period. His answer was that we should know the working of the Police. Perhaps the we should also know the working of the Electricity Department as well. However, such type of approach leads us nowhere.

(3.) COMING back to the sequence of events, Assistant Engineer of the petitioner on 10. 1. 1994 forwarded the application of shifting of the electric connection to the Executive Engineer who on 8. 2. 1994 called for the explanation of the Assistant Engineer as to why action had not been taken for shifting of the electric connection so far. Thereafter a bill for Rs. 7,250 was given to the complainant towards cost of the shifting of the electric connection. Complainant objected to this amount in the bill and said that other persons similarly situated had been charged Rs. 3,400 for the purpose and the bill for Rs. 7,250 was not correct.