S.K.M. Lodha, President:
(1) This appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) has been filed by the opposite-party against the order dated 24.10.89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 106/89. The District Forum by the impugned order, has directed that the opposite-party-appellant should pay Rs. 8,000/- as compensation within a period of two months and further to restore the electric connection within four days to the complainant to Electric Account No. 1-2-112. A further direction was given that the meter of the complainant may be shifted in accordance with the application. It may be stated that the complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 12 of the Act. It is dated 7.7.89. It was prayed by him that the opposite-party may be ordered to shift the meter and restore the electric supply and further that on account of disconnection, the complainant has been put to loss, so compensations may be ordered. Other expenses and costs were also claimed. In the application for stay of the operation of the order, which was submitted on 7.12.89 the opposite-party-appellant has stated that in compliance of the order of the District Forum, electric connection has been restored. The complainant-respondent did not dispute this. In these circumstances, so far as the direction of restoration of electric supply is concerned, it has been complied with and, thus, the complainant-respondent had already got the relief of restoration of electric supply. In this appeal, the dispute is only with respect to the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 8,000/-. We shall notice the facts material for determining this dispute.
(2) The complainant has alleged that he submitted an application on 26.12.80 to the Assistant Engineer, D-3, Electricity Board, Bikaner, stating that the meter of the electric connection Account No. 1-2-112 may be shifted to his building. An estimate was prepared and the complainant was informed on 12.2.81 that a sum of Rs. 35/- may be deposited for the shifting of the meter. In compliance of that, the complainant deposited Rs. 35/- on 13.2.81 vide receipt No. 40. Thereupon, the Assistant Engineer gave order to the Junior Engineer to shift the meter and give connection. On 13.2.81, the Junior Engineer came to the spot in the evening and removed the wires between the main line and also the meter. The duty hours were over and as such he left the place saying that the meter would be shifted the next day. According to the complainant, thereafter nobody on behalf of the opposite-party came for shifting the meter upto the date of filing of the complaint and the electric wires were not connected. On account of this, the complainant was deprived of the use of electricity. The complainant is said to have contacted the authorities and wrote letters in this connection. Ultimately, the complainant received a letter dated 29.10.86 from the opposite-party, in which it is written that the meter could not be shifted on the excuse of the complainant that the key is not with him. In that letter, it was also written that the complainant has not deposited the electricity dues from March, 1981 to July, 1981 and so on 9.7.81 the supply was disconnected as the amount of Rs. 126/- was not deposited. It was also stated that from April, 1981, as the domestic electricity was consumed in the shop, the commercial charges were levied. The complainant replied to that letter on 30.10.86 and, thereafter, nothing was done. The complainant filed the complaint as aforesaid for the above-mentioned reliefs.
(3) Notice was issued to the opposite-party. It was admitted that the amount for shifting the meter was deposited, as alleged by the complainant. It was, however, denied that on 13.2.81, the meter and wires were removed and electric supply was discontinued, as alleged by the complainant. The case of the opposite-party as set out in the version of the case is that the complainant sent back the Junior Engineer on 13.2.81 saying that the key is not with him. Thereafter, the key was not made available and, therefore, the meter could not be shifted. According to the opposite-party, the disconnection was done on 9.7.81 as the electricity dues were not deposited. Letters dated 5.8.85, 31.12.85, 15.1.86, 19.5.86, 29.10.86, 20.11.86, 23.9.86, 27.9.86, 7.11.86, 14.1.87, 9.11.87, 2.1.88, 7.1.88, 28.1.88, 22.2.88, 10.3.88 and 14.4.88 were sent to the complainant for depositing the amount however, unnecessarily entered into the correspondence. It was also stated that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1,498.83 and, thereafter, the electric supply was restored. The District Forum formulated two questions for determination: (1) Whether the disconnection was made on 13.2.81 or 9.7.81? (2) Whether the complainant did not allow the opposite-party to shift the meter on 13.2.81 The District Forum held that the version of the complainant appears to be correct that the disconnection was made on 13.2.81 by removing the wires between the main line and the meter. As the disconnection was done without notice, it cannot be said to be in accordance with the Rules and, therefore, the opposite-party is liable. After considering Condition No. 30 and other facts, the District Forum recorded a finding that the complainant has succeeded in establishing that the disconnection was done on 13.2.81 and, thereafter, the complainant had to remain without electricity and, therefore he is entitled to compensation and also for the restoration of the electric supply. According to the District Forum, the complainant must have been put to inconvenience on account of the disconnection and he had to remain without electricity for a period of nine years and, therefore, it was of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- should be awarded as compensation. It, therefore, passed the order as stated above.
(4) A perusal of the order-sheet dated 19.9.89, recorded by the District Forum, shows that both the parties were directed to file documents and affidavits in support of their respective versions but none of the parties filed documents and affidavits and so, the case was posted for arguments. However, on 4.10.89, the complainant filed the photostat copies of some documents. Thereafter, on 24.10.89. the impugned order was passed.
(5) As stated above, in this appeal, we are concerned only with the order passed by the District Forum for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-. It may be recalled that the disconnection according to the complainant, and as has been found by the District Forum, was done on 13.2.81. Thereafter, there was correspondence between the complainant and the opposite-party. The complaint is dated 7.7.89 and it was filed on 10.7.89. On the date of filing the complaint, the complainant could not institute the suit for restoration of electric supply and compensation. It may be stated here that Chapters I, II and IV of the Act came into force on 15.4.87 and Chapter III came into force on 1.7.87. The complaint is highly belated inasmuch as the disconnection of the electric supply was done according to the complainant on 13.2.81. The claim for damages or compensation arising out of the action or omission had become time-barred under the Law of Limitation long prior to the coming into force of the Act. In such a case, the State Commission will not be justified in entertaining such a stale claim. Reference may be made to M/s. Oswal Fine Arts. v. H.M.T., Madras (Original Petition No. 1/89, decided on April 27,1989, by the National Commission, New Delhi). The various letters which are said to have been written by the complainant, cannot be availed by him so as to save the bar of limitation. The electric supply has already been restored to the complainant, as mentioned above and so, so far as the bar of limitation for the grant of relief of restoration of electric supply is concerned, it is not of any significance whatsoever. The complainant in the complaint has not stated the quantum of compensation. To quote from the complaint:- fcuk fctyhzz izkFkh o mlds ifjokj dk vkt rd uqdlku gtk vkfn gqvk gS muds [kpksssa dks ftruk vf?kd dgk tk, mruk gh de gS vf?kd ls vf?kd [kpaaaaas fnykus dk vkns'k djkosa A He did not file any affidavit. He also did not lead any evidence on the question of compensation. The National Commission has laid down that under Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Act, compensation can be awarded to a consumer only in respect of any loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite-party. It is the essence of Sec. 14(1)(d) that loss or injury for which the compensation is to be adjudged and awarded, should be found to have been caused by the negligence of the opposite-party. The complainant has, therefore, to establish that there was negligence on the part of the opposite-party and that as a consequence there of, loss or injury was suffered by him. It is only in such event that award of compensation is warranted under the provisions of Sec. 14(1)(d) of the Act, (See Consumer Unity Society, Calcutta v. Chairman and the Managing Director, Bank of Baroda (Original Petition No. 2/88, decided on May 18,1989, by the National Commission, New Delhi). The following observations were made in General Manager, Southern-Eastern Railways and others v. Anand Prakash Sinha and others I (1991) CPJ 10 (NC) (First Appeal No., 3/88, decided on July 28,1989 by the National Commission, New Delhi):
"It is established principle of law that compensation awarded must have a rational relation to the nature and extent of the injury, inconvenience or physical and mental sufferings caused to the complainant by the action or omission of the opposite-party. No attempt was made by the State Commission to approach the question of quantification of compensation from this correct perspective."
These observations were reiterated in Commercial Officer, Office of the Telecom., Patna v. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation, I (1991) CPJ 42 (NC) (First Appeal No. 2/88, decided on 18.10.89 by the National Commission). It was observed therein-
"As indicated above, by us in some of our earlier judgments, the award of compensation by the Forums established under the Act has to be made only on well recognised legal principles governing the quantification of damages or compensation. The compensation to be awarded has to be quantified on a rational basis on a consideration of materials produced before the adjudicating forum showing the extent of injury suffered and the manner in which and the extent to monetary loss has been caused thereby to the complainant"
(6) Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions and also the Bharat Tractor, Mujaffarpur v. Ramchandra Pandey, I (1991) CPJ 14 (NC) (First Appeal No. 1 decided on May 15,1989), we are of opinion that the complainant has not substantiated by sufficient evidence, his claim for compensation. There is hardly any material on record to support the claim for compensation on the ground of harassment or loss. The complainant did not pursue the remedy at the earliest after the disconnection so as to mitigate the damages. The claim for compensation fails on two grounds: (1) that it is a stale claim and had become time barred under the Law of Limitation long prior to the coming into force of the Act; and (2) that there is hardly any material on record to support the claim for compensation on the ground of harassment and loss. The direction made by the District Forum in regard to the award of compensation to the extent of Rs. 8,000/- deserves to be set aside and we accordingly set it aside.
(7) The order dated 24.10.89, passed by the District Forum, Bikaner in Complaint Case No. 186/89 is accordingly modified. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Appeal partly allowed.