Rumnita Mittal, Member:
1. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the District Forum-III dated 10.6.1997 passed in Complaint Case No. 214/97 entitled J.K. Dhingra v. General Manager, D.E.S.U.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellant had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as âthe Act), before the District Forum, averring that the appellant had been sanctioned a new connection K. No. 213/DL/149365 of 1 KW, for the first floor, of his house on 16.6.1995 and the said sanction order together with order for installing the meter was sent to the A.E. (Ramesh Nagar) Zone on 24.6.1995. But, despite the efforts of the appellant, the electricity connection could only be energized on 20.9.1995, i.e. after a delay of about three months from the date of sanction. The appellant had, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying for the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
3. The stand of the respondent/D.V.B. in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum was that there was shortage of meters in the stores of the respondent during the period June, 1995 to September, 1995 and only defective meters were being replaced, therefore, despite requisition no meter was provided on 28.6.1995 for the connection sanctioned in favour of the appellant, and it was only on 16.9.1995 that a meter was issued and immediately on 20.9.1995 the same was installed at the premises of the appellant. It was further the case of the respondent that the appellant had not been deprived of electricity as alleged, as the ground floor of the same premises had already been electrified. Thus, the complaint was not maintainable, as there was no deficiency in service on its part.
4. The learned District Forum vide impugned order held that the respondent had delayed the energizing of the electric connection sanctioned in favour of the appellant and as such, because of the said deficiency, was liable to pay Rs. 200/- as compensation and Rs. 150/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the relief awarded by abovementioned order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of compensation and cost awarded.
6. We have carefully gone through the documents/material placed on record as well as, have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties.
7. The appellant has contended that he was deprived of the benefit of using the first floor of his premises for a period of about three months on account of the neglect on the part of the respondent, in energizing the electric connection on 20.9.1995, whereas the same was duly sanctioned on 16.6.1995, itself. It was further contended by the appellant, that he had to visit the concerned A.E. a number of times, as well as, pursue the matter with the various officials of the respondent for three months before his premises were electrified and thus had to undergo immense harassment and mental agony during the said period. Therefore, the compensation and cost awarded by the District Forum, vide impugned order, was too meagre and highly inadequate in the circumstances. In this regard the appellant has relied upon a decision of this Commission in the case of D.V.B. v. R.K. Saini, reported as I (2000) CPJ 507.
8. The respondent, on the other hand argued that a minimum period of 29 days is required generally for energizing an electric connection and surveying the feasibility for the same. It was also pointed out that the appellant had not provided the details for computing the compensation claimed nor any supporting documents, assessing the loss incurred by it, had been placed on record and, therefore, could not be awarded any compensation on that account.
9. On due consideration of the rival contentions of the parties it is evident that there has been delay in energizing the electric connection at the residence of the appellant and even though the ground floor of the same was already electrified, the fact remains that the first floor could not be utilized for want of electricity. It cannot also be ignored that the appellant had to run from pillar to post to have the connection energized and as such must have undergone needless harassment in contacting the various officials of the respondent. Merely because the appellant made his complaint in writing for the first time on 18.9.1995, would not in any way mitigate or dilute the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.
10. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation of Rs. 200/- as well as cost of Rs. 150/- granted to the appellant, vide impugned order, by the District Forum was decidedly inadequate. The same is enhanced to a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and cost, which would satisfy the ends of justice in the given facts of the case.
The present appeal is disposed of in above terms.
Appeal disposed of.