STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SAI WIRE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case is whether revision of the estimate by the Electricity Board (hereinafter be referred as Board) to shift the pole/poles to suit the requirement of a consumer after depositing the originally estimated amount can be construed as deficiency in service. The simple answer to the question is 'No'.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that M/s. Sai Wire Industries is a consumer of Electricity Board with electric connection No. 62564. During the construction of the factory he wanted a pole of 33 KV to be removed. The Board raised a demand note of Rs. 7,075 as shifting charges which the complainant deposited on 21.2.1998. As shifting of the pole was not done for a period of four months he filed a complaint before the District Forum demanding 18% interest on the deposited amount with Rs. 2,000 as compensation and Rs. 600 as costs. This was contested by the Board stating that when the work was being executed it was found that removal of two other electricity poles were required and in addition hundred metres of aluminium wire were required to complete the work, hence revised estimate of Rs. 48,000 was prepared, which was intimated to the complainant on 1.4.1998 with the request to deposit the amount to enable the Board to execute the work. The District Forum directed the complainant to deposit this amount to enable the Board to complete the task immediately. The complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which decided the case on 24.4.2002 with the following observations : "No appeal lies against the consent order, however, the appellant has filed the affidavit of the Counsel who conducted the case on behalf of the appellant before the District Forum. Hence, it would be just and proper to remit the case to the District Forum for deciding the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the issue whether shifting of line of 33 KVA passing over the plot of land, requires an expenditure of Rs. 48,000 as on 21.2.1998 or not or the estimated amount of Rs. 7,075 deposited by the appellant. It is made clear that the deposit of Rs. 7,075 would not be treated as an estoppel against the Board. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is sent back to the District Forum for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs."

(3.) Accordingly, the District Forum re-heard the matter and observed that :