H S E B Vs. PIRTHI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The true purpose and scope of Sec.27 of the Act is the crucial issue herein. The ancillary question is whether total compliance with the substantive order of the redressal agency would be an extenuating factor for modifying the rigour of a penal order passed under Sec.27 of the Act. These significant issues arise out of this set of two connected revision petitions directed against the same order of the District Forum.

(2.) The facts are not in serious dispute. Pirthi Singh had preferred a complaint before the District Forum, Kaithal on the 6th of June, 1992 against the petitioner Haryana Electricity Board (here in after called the Board ). The said complaint was allowed on the 30th of September, 1992 with the direction that the Board through its Sub Divisional Officer, Pundri shall release the electric connection to the tubewell of the complainant against the earlier test reports within three weeks of the order. Both the Board and the complainant preferred separate First Appeals Nos.346 of 1992 and 352 of 1992, respectively against the said order. This Commission by its order dated the 15th of December, 1992, rejected the First Appeal No.346 of 1992 with costs whilst allowing the complainant's First Appeal No.352 of 1992 and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- only as additional relief. If was in terms directed that the order shall be complied with within one month from the date of its pronouncement on pain of enforcement under Sec.27 of the Act.

(3.) The Board did not choose to comply with the order aforesaid within the prescribed time till the 15th January, 1993. Pirthi Singh, complainant consequently preferred an application under Sec.27 of the Act before the District Forum for necessary action. On notice being issued to the Board and its officials namely the Executive Engineer, Pundri and S. D. O. , Pundri an assurance was given on the 16th of February, 1993. On that date an undertaking to comply with the order by the 18th of February, 1993 was categorically given. However, when the matter came up before the District Forum on the said date, the a foresaid two officials merely chose to make a submission before the forum enumerating some lane excuses for not energising the tubewell of the complainant takingshelter on the ground that an appeal had been preferred before the National Commission though admittedly the same had not even come up for motion hearing nor any stay order had been granted. It was also stated that the Board was proposing only as yet to deposit the amount of compensation on certain terms and conditions.