FIRST APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2002 (From the order dated 07.08.01 in Complaint No. 19/1992 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Moradabad … Appellant Versus 1. Kishan Lal, Open Pan Sugar Plant, Mainather, District Moradabad Through its Partner 2. State of Uttar Pradesh Through its Secretary (Revenue), Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow. 3. Additional District Magistrate, (Finance and Revenue) Moradabad (U.P.) … Respondents BEFORE:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Ms. Jyoti Sharma, AdvocateFor Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 19th NOV. 2009 O R D E R MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER Appellant UP Power Corporation was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent / complainant, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is a ‘partnership-firm’, which is engaged in the manufacturing of Khandsari sugar, situated at Mainather. It is for this Khandsari unit, that the electricity was being supplied by the opposite party / appellant for which a transformer was located within the premises of the respondent / complainant. It was his case that on 17.03.91, the said transformer was burnt resulting in failure of power to the complainant Khandsari unit, resulting in stoppage of sugar plant. This transformer was not repaired till the expiry of the sugar season resulting in huge loss to the respondent / complainant. It is in these circumstances, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, a complaint was filed before the State Commission with the following prayer:- “(a) that the opposite party may be directed to repair the transformer which was installed in the factory premises of the complainant and had burnt on 17.03.92 and the electricity supply may be restored to the complainant with effect from November, 1992. (b) that the opposite party may be directed not to charge the minimum charges for the period during which the factory was closed due to non-supply of electricity by the opposite parties particularly for the period 17.03.91 to November, 1992, and they may also be directed and the electricity bills as at Annexure 1 to 18 may be corrected and sent to the complainant. (c) that the amount of Rs.23,629.75 may be adjusted in the bills and a final bill may be sent to the Complainant so that the payment of the bills may be made. (d) that the amount of Rs.5,95,000/- and compensation as stated above may be directed to be paid by the Opposite parties to the complainant. (e) that if in the opinion of the Hon’ble court, the complainant is entitled to get any order in its favour and against the opposite parties, this may also be passed. The cost of the case may also be directed to be given by the opposite parties to the complainant. ” Upon issue of notice, the appellant appeared and contested the case. The State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation for the financial loss and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental torture and harassment. It was also directed that OP No. 3 shall not charge minimum consumption guarantee charges from April 1991 to November, 1991. Rs.4,000/- as cost was also awarded. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. The only dispute is whether the transformer had gone out of order on 17.03.91 and if so, when it was repaired? The State Commission has dealt with this issue in the following manner:- “the question to be decided is whether the transformer was burnt on 17.3.91 and if so there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in not arranging for a new transformer which allegedly put the complainant into harassment and finally losses which was caused to the complainant. To determine this, we have to analyse the evidence placed on record. Both the parties have filed a number of copies of documents. The paper at C-1 annexure to the counter affidavit of the opposite party is a letter from the Junior Engineer of the opposite party confirming that the power connection of the complainant remains disconnected and therefore, the workshop Engineer was asked to set right the transformer. This letter is dated 17.3.91. Again there is a copy of the letter, annexure C-2, addressed by the same Junior Engineer of the opposite party which is dated 18.3.91 in which it has been stated that the generator was checked and was found correct, complaint lodged therefore was false. A report of this was given to the S.D.O. also which is evident from paper C-3 filed by the opposite party. The same Junior Engineer has again sent letters, C-4, C-5 and C-6 warning the complainant not to make false complaints as the transformer was checked and was found correct. When we compare these documents to the ones produced by the complainant, we find that there is a different story. The electricity bill given by the opposite party to the complainant for months of July, 91, August 91, September, 91, October 91 and November 91 clearly indicates that the transformer stands damaged. This is evident from the column of present reading in the bills and the past readings have been shown as constant. For the month of March 91, the electricity bills indicate that the present reading is 6297 and the same reading has been indicated in all the subsequent bills mentioned above. This clearly goes to show that the transformer has been damaged in the month of March 91 and the letters of the opposite party addressed to the complainant and to their higher officials are manipulated ones. The opposite party has contended in their various affidavits narrated above that the complainant has forged certain documents, but the electricity bills as mentioned above clearly goes to show that from April onwards the present reading was constant and there is a clear entry in every bill that the transformer has been damaged. There is no rebuttal of these entries. Alongwith the complaint there is a copy of the letter dated 31.3.91 on which there is an endorsement made by an official of the opposite party that the information in regard to the burning of the transformer had already been given to the S.D.O. and the Junior Engineer (Workshop). A copy of the letter dated 15.12.90 (paper no. 21 of the complaint) is a direction to the Junior Engineer of the S.D.O. that in the Junior Engineer’s circle a number of transformers have been burnt and the Junior Engineer was required to furnish estimates for new transformers. This letter also confirms that the transformer of the complainant was also providing power to the neighbouring tube-wells resulting into loss to the factory. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance on the copies of the movement register / log book but in view of the fact that the opposite party’s officials themselves confirmed the burning of the transformer, we cannot place reliance on the entry made in column no. 12 on 17.3.91 which says that the transformer has been found alright. The entry is therefore not reliable. The executive Engineer of the opposite party visited the spot on 13.2.1992 only when the complainant was informed that he has to pay the minimum guarantee charges as the dues are outstanding against him. As already discussed above the bills from March 91 onwards continued to give the present reading of 6297 and the same reading continued till November 91 or so. The complainant certainly could not have liked the factory to remain closed because the closure would have given him losses. The plea of the opposite party that there was labour trouble in the factory and there was shortage of cane supply has not been substantiated by any evidence of whatsoever kind. Accepting for a moment that the complainant was not interested to continue the crushing operations or there was shortage of cane, he would have certainly not liked to stop operations on 17.3.91 or 18.3.91 simply because of the fact that the operations in the open pan sugar factories are such that even after the cane crushing is finished, the processing of sugar continue for another 10 days at least. Boiling of juice, crystallization of juice and manufacturing of sugar by centrifuging process continues until the final molasses comes out, and the sugar grain or the Khandsari grain is prepared. No entrepreneur would like to halt this continuous process which may end into a substantial loss by not processing the sugar after the cane has been crushed. A perusal of the documents filed by the complainant goes to show that the Assistant Sugar Cane Commissioner had allowed the complainant to undertake crushing operations for 1992 season also, copy of licence is indicative of this.” (emphasis supplied) We have very carefully gone through the records, the correspondence exchanged between the Junior Engineer, Sub-Divisional Officer and Executive Engineer of the appellant Corporation (starting from page 30 to page 70 of the paper-book), which clearly reveals that the stand of the Junior Engineer, at times, is that transformer was burnt, yet at other time, he shows ignorance about this. The report Sub Divisional Officer is in favour of the complainant, i.e., that the transformer was indeed burnt (page 50 of the paper-book). We only reproduce here the letters written by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 1.1.92 appearing at page 50 of the paper-book and very interestingly, in reply to this letter, the Junior Engineer, had the audacity to level an allegation on supporting the consumer. “L.No. 848/S-MTR Dated 1.1.92 Subject:- Regarding transformers of M/s. Kishan Lal Open Pan Sugar Factory. Junior Engineer Mainather. On the above subject you are informed that you sent a report regarding damaged transformers of the Power Consumer to the Junior Engineer, Workshop and on the basis of your report higher authorities were informed accordingly and therefore new transformers were sent there. But both the transformers were unloaded on the sub-station by you and now it is your statement that both the transformers of the P.C. are working well in order. In this connection you are hereby directed that both the transformers kept at sub-station may be sent to workshop, Majhola. Besides this, this may be informed on what date you repaired the transformers of the above P.C. and when you went the information regarding repair of transformers of the P.C. to this Office so that further action may be taken in this matter. Sd/- (V.K. Goel) Sub-Divisional Officer-I” The letter dated 8.1.92 by the Executive Engineer to the Sub-Divisional Officer calls for the explanation of the SDO as to why the estimate for replacement of the damaged transformers were prepared and transformers were also issued and were going to be installed in the premises of above consumer. This runs contrary to the report sent to Assistant Engineer by the Junior Engineer dated 17.3.91 and 18.3.91, which reads as under:- “L .No. 116/MTR Dated: 17.3.91 Subject:- Regarding damaged two transformers of 63 KVA in the Plant of Consumer – Kishan Lal Sugar Plant Junior Engineer (Workshop) Majhola (Moradabad) It is to inform you that the consumer M/s. Kishan Lal Sugar Plant has informed today dated 17.3.91 that both the transformers of 63 KVA of their factory are not working due to the reason being burnt. Supply to the consumer is closed. Therefore, it is requested in this connection that above transformers may kindly be got repaired at the earliest so that supply of electricity to the consumer be restored. Sd/- (Abdul Aziz) Junior Engineer, Mainather” (emphasis supplied) L. No. Camp / MTR Dated 18.3.91 Subject:-Regarding checking of the transformers M/s. Kishan Lal open Pan Sugar Plant, Mainather In reference to your letter dated 17.3.91 today on 18.3.91, the undersigned got checked both the transformers by his staff in presence of yourself and your staff as well. Both the transformers were found O.K. and supply of the factory has been restored by fixing T.P.M.O. Please do not lodge false complaint at the Sub-station in future otherwise the undersigned would be compelled to take proper action against you. (Abdul Aziz) Junior Engineer, Mainather” Refused to receive the letter Sd/- Mohd. Mukim 18.3.91. (emphasis supplied) The above correspondence shows two things – one that there is in-house difference of opinion on the part of the break-down or otherwise of the transformer in question. When we go by letter 17.3.91 and 18.3.91, reproduced above, issued by the Junior Engineer, it is clear that the transformer located in the premises of the complainant were not working due to the reason ‘being burnt’ (page 31 of the paper-book). Again a letter (appearing at page 35 of the paper-book) by Junior Engineer, reproduced above, it is clear that “by fixing T.P.M.O. the supply of the factory was restored.” Secondly, it is quite clear that the transformer had burnt down and supply was then restored by fixing T.P.M.O. If the transformer had not burnt down resulting in failure to supply electricity, where was the question of ‘restoring’ supply? In fact, the supply was never restored, which we deduce from the fact that the appellant did not issue the bills after meter reading of the meter but the bills being issued on minimum guarantee basis, i.e., there was no meter reading (in fact it remained the same throughout) meaning thereby that the supply was not restored. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, calling for our interference, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction as nothing to the contrary has been shown by the Counsel for the appellant to take any different view than the one taken by the State Commission. We find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.