NEGI RAM Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where the complainant - Negi Ram wanted to set up an industry by the name and style of M/s. Ravi Plastics for which he obtained a loan from the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation. After purchasing machinery he approached the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter be referred as Board) for sanctioning the required load. He also applied for a separate 100 KV transformer for which he deposited Rs. 64,345 on 7.3.1989. The transformer was not installed by the Board till the date of the complaint. The Board resisted by stating that the complainant was required to submit a test report of the installation through an authorised electrical contractor which has not been done. Further site was not made available by the complainant, both of which are the pre-requisite conditions for installation of the transformer and releasing the electric connection. The complainant submitted that he had suffered huge loss for which he had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lakhs and interest @ 18% per annum in addition compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh for mental harassment and agony. Though the Board was willing to refund the amount but it was not agreeable to pay the interest. The State Commission held that: It is well settled that the Commission can always award interest on delayed refund of amount if the ends of justice, equity and fair play so require. We may notice that the complainant has issued a notice to the opposite party on 6.8.1996 for refund of the amount along with interest and also pay damages on account of loss suffered by him. In fact, he has seriously and in the right earnest taken up the matter with the opposite party on 6.8.1996 and in our opinion, he is entitled to interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 6.8.1996 i.e., from the date of issue of notice, till the amount is actually paid in full and final settlement of the claim. This is also acceptable to Mr. Rajeev Sood, Counsel for the complainant. (Emphasis supplied)

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the complainant has filed this appeal before us. His main case is that the appellant has suffered huge loss on account of non-installation of the transformer by the Board. Due to the negligence of the Board, the factory which was set up by the appellant after obtaining loan from the Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation could not take off and hence he has suffered huge loss. Therefore, he had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lakh may be awarded along with 18% interest per annum with a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh towards mental agony and torture. He even contended that the learned Counsel for the complainant had no authority to concede to the relief of refund money deposited towards the installation of transformer with interest.

(3.) We have perused the records of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the appellant has not produced any proof before the State Commission for having installed the machinery and submissions of the test report to the Board. Further, in his appeal he has not mentioned that the Counsel before the State Commission i.e., his Advocate had wrongly conceded to accept the refund advance towards the transformer amount with interest. It is too late in the day to submit that his Counsel before the State Commission had no instructions to accept this relief. Further he has also not submitted any proof before the State Commission of having incurred huge losses to the tune of Rs. 8.00 lakhs with supporting documents such as balance sheet, profit and loss account and Bank statement etc. In the absence of these, we are of the view that complainant has completely failed to prove his case of demanding compensation more than what has been awarded by the State Commission.