SATPAL KAUR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainants, Satpal Kaur and Sartej Singh, challenging order of District Forum, Gurdaspur dated August, 13,1996 whereby their complaint was dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts by the complainants.

(2.) Sartej Singh is attorney of complainant No.1, Satpal Kaur. She had taken an electric connection of 3 hps. for irrigating her fields (tubewell connection ). As per allegations in the complaint, on May 17, 1996, officials of the Electricity Board removed the high tension wires from the fields of the complainant with the result that electricity was disconnected from the tube well. Even at the time of filing the complaint connection had not been restored. Thus, compensation was claimed apart from the direction for restoration of the electricity connection. Compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac was claimed apart from Rs.10,000/- damages towards harassment and inconvenience. On behalf of the Electricity Board, version was filed. With respect to removal of the high tension wires on May 17,1996, specifically the fact was denied in para 2 of the written statement. It was asserted that earlier on April, 29 (25), 1996 temporarily electricity was disconnected but subsequently restored on May 13/14,1996. The electricity was disconnected on account of non payment of electricity bill and was restored on its payment. The allegation with respect to suffering loss on account of non availability of irrigation water was denied. It was sought to be explained that the villagers had deposited the requisite amount for shifting 11 KV line, which was the utility service. The Electricity Board was fully competent to do so. The complainant Sartej Singh in support of the complaint filed his affidavit and affidavits of Hira Singh and Santokh were filed. As per their evidence, on May 17, 1996, High Tension Wires were removed on May 19,1996, electricity was reconnected. It may be observed that no affidavit of any official of the Electricity Board was filed. The complainant has also produced photographs of his field and tubewell room to indicate removal of High Tension Wire and disconnection.

(3.) There is force in the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence produced on behalf of the Electricity Board regarding removal of High Tension Wires on May, 17 and reconnection on May 19,1996 cannot be accepted being beyond the plea of the Electricity Board taken in the written statement. As already stated above, in para 2 of the written statement, a specific stand was taken by the Electricity Board that cables were not removed and the allegation was totally wrong. However, the evidence led establishes the case of the complainant that cables were removed on May 17, 1996. The witness may tell lies, however, circumstances will not. The disconnection of the electricity of the tubewell stands amply proved from the evidence of the complainant as well as the evidence produced by the Board. According to the complainant, electricity was restored after filing of the complaint after about ten days of its disconnection. Since, no official of the Electricity Board chose to file affidavit, there is no reason to discard the evidence produced by the complainant in this respect. Thus, it is held that electricity of the complainant remained disconnected for about 10 clays and this is the deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Electricity Board.