State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sau Kamal Bhimrao Bhagat vs The Exe Engineer Maharashtra State ... on 28 September, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA NAGPUR CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR First Appeal No. FA/14/133 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/02/2014 in Case No. 15/2013 of District Amravati) 1. M.S.E.D.S.L CIVIL LINES,PARATWADA,TAH-ACHALPUR,DIST-AMRAVATI 2. M.S.E.D.S.L CIVIL LINES,PARATWADA,TAH-ACHALPUR,DIST-AMRAVATI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHRI.VASANTRAO KESHARAO GANORKAR KANDLI(JUNI BASTI),TAH-ACHALPUR,DIST-AMRAVATI ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. FA/14/134 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/02/2014 in Case No. 16/2013 of District Amravati) 1. M.S.E.D.S.L CIVIL LINES,PARATWADA,TAH-ACHALPUR,DIST-AMRAVATI AMRAVATI 2. M.S.E.D.S.L PARATWADA,TAH-ACHALPUR,AMRAVATI AMRAVATI ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SAU.KAMAL BHIMRAO BHAGAT KANDLI(JUNI BASTI),TAH-ACHALPUR,DIST-AMRAVATI AMRAVATI ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/14/231 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/02/2014 in Case No. cc/13/15 of District Amravati) 1. Vasantrao Keshavrao Ganorkar Tah- Achalpur Dist- Amaravati Amaravati ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Exe Engineer Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Civil lines Paratwada Tah- Achalpur Amaravati 2. Asstt Exe Engineer Sub Div No 2 M S E D C L Co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Civil lines paratwada Amaravati M S 3. Asstt Engineer M S CE D C L CO LT Civil lines Paratwada Amaravati 4. The Junior Engineer MSEDCL co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Amaravati ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/14/232 (Arisen out of Order Dated 12/02/2014 in Case No. cc/13/16 of District Amravati) 1. Sau Kamal Bhimrao Bhagat R/o Kadli Juni Vasti Paratwada Tah- Paratwada Amaravati M S ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Exe Engineer Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Civil lines Paratwada Tah- Achalpur Amaravati M S 2. Asstt Engineer MSEDCL Co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Amaravati 3. The Asstt Engineer MSEDCL Co ltd Civil lines Paratwada Amaravati 4. The Junior Engineer MSEDCL Paratwada Civil lines Paratwada Amaravati ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR MEMBER For the Appellant: Advocate Mr.Quazi and Advocate Mr.Rahate for appellant in FA/14/133 and FA/134 and for Respondent in A/14/231 and A/14/232. For the Respondent: Advocate Mr.Abhishek Shukla for appellant in A/14/231 and A/14/232 and for Respondent in FA/14/133 and FA/134. Dated : 28 Sep 2017 Final Order / Judgement Per Shri B.A.Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
(COMMON ORDER)
1. These four appeals are being disposed of by this common order as common questions of law and facts are involved in them. All these four appeals are filed by the original party (for short O.P.) Nos. 1 and 2, feeling aggrieved by two identical orders dated 12/02/2014 passed in two complaints bearing Nos. C.C.15/213 and C.C.16/213, by which the said two complaints are partly allowed.
2. The common case of the two complainants as set out by them in the aforesaid two complaints in brief is as under.
Both the complainants are the agriculturists and they obtained electric connection to motor pump of well of their respective land for the purpose of irrigation. They regularly paid the electric bills. However the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 who provided that electric connection, did not regularly provide electric supply from June 2012 to 11/10/2012. Due to that reason both the complainants could not operate their electric motor pump of wells for the purpose of irrigation of their land. The orange trees standing in their respective land, therefore could not give the expected yield by way of fruits. The complainants had made several complaints to the O.Ps. and other authorities during the above period when electric supply was disrupted. But the O.Ps. did not take cognizance of the same. The Agricultural Officer paid visit to the lands of the complainants and inspected the orange trees and issued certificate showing the loss sustained by the complainants due to lack of water. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps., the aforesaid two complaints were filed by the respective complainant, before the District Forum, Amravati. The complainants in complaint Nos.15/213 and 16/2013 respectively claimed compensation of Rs.13,02,000/- and Rs.15,02,000/- from the O.Ps. They also claimed litigation cost in each of the complaint.
3. The O.Ps. appeared before the District Forum in both the complaints and filed their identical reply and thereby resisted both complaints on common grounds as under.
4. It is admitted that the respective complainant obtained electric connections to motor pump of their respective well for the purpose of irrigation of their respective land and that the orange trees were planted by them in their respective land. It is denied that there was disruption of the electricity of the land of the complainants from the month of June 2012 till 11/10/2012 and due to that reason the complainants could not irrigate their respective land and therefore they suffered loss as alleged in the complaints. They also submitted that as per policy decision, the category and division of electric supply from various feeders were changed. However there was no complaint by the consumer at any time, as regards the disruption of the electric supply for such a long period. Therefore it is denied that there was disruption of electric supply between June 2012 and October 2012. Hence the O.Ps. had prayed that both the complaints may be dismissed with cost.
5. The District Forum, Amravati below after hearing both the parties and considering evidence brought on record in both the complaints passed the two identical impugned orders on 12/02/2014 and thereby accepted the aforesaid case of the original complainants and dis-belived the aforesaid defence of the O.Ps. and directed the O.Ps. to pay to the complainant in complaint No.15/2013 compensation of Rs.1,82,000/- towards loss sustained by him and to the complainant in complaint No.16/2013 compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss sustained by him. The District Forum also directed O.Ps. to pay each of the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/- for physical and mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-. The District Forum also directed that the said order be complied with within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of that order, and in case of default, the said amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a.
6. Thus feeling aggrieved by that order, the original O.Ps. have filed two appeals bearing Nos.FA/14/133 and FA/14/134 to set aside the same. Where as feeling aggrieved by the said two orders the original complainants have filed other two appeals bearing Nos.A/14/231 and A/14/232 for enhancement of compensation. We have heard learned advocate of both parties and perused the entire record of all the appeals.
7. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned advocate of the original O.Ps. in brief is as under.
i) The original complainants failed to prove that there was irregular electric supply for such a long time and due to that reason they could not irrigate land and suffered financial loss.
ii) The District Forum below did not properly appreciate the documents filed on record.
iii) The assessment of compensation by the District Forum is not supported by the documents filed on record.
iv) The impugned orders are thus erroneous and deserve to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned advocate of the complainants made submission in brief is as under.
i) Though the District Forum below rightly held that due to disruption of the electric supply given by the O.Ps., the original complainants suffered loss, the District Forum below failed to correctly assess the compensation.
ii) The compensation ought to have been awarded as claimed in original complaints, which is also duly proved from the documents filed on record.
iii) The appeals filed by the original O.Ps. are devoid of merit and may be dismissed and appeals filed by both the complainants may be allowed.
9. It is pertinent to note that it is admitted by the original O.Ps. that as per the policy decision, the category and divisions were changed with respect of electric supply from various feeders from the month of November 2011. The original complainants came with a case that from the month of June 2012 to 11/10/2012 there was continuous disruption of electric supply and due to that reason they had made various complaints to O.Ps. and other authorities. Their said case is duly supported by copies of those complaints filed on record.
10. As against this, the O.Ps. did not produce any document to show that though there was change in the policy of supply electricity as above from various feeders, the electric supply was not affected and it was continued as per schedule. It is also seen that the complainants also filed affidavits of their neighbours in support of their case about continuous disruption of electric supply from June 2012 to 11/10/2012. A complaint about the same was also recorded in complaint register of Gram Panchayat, Kandli. However the O.Ps. did not take any action upon those complaints.
11. We find that the District Forum on the basis of documents filed on record and the aforesaid facts and circumstances has rightly come to the conclusion that the O.Ps. rendered deficient service to both the complainants by not providing electric supply as per schedule to their electric motor pump of well for the purpose of irrigation for the period from June 2012 to 11/10/2012.
12. We also find that the documents filed on record as discussed in the impugned orders proved that both the complainants had planted orange trees in their respective land and for lack of water supply during above period the said orange trees could not bear the expected orange fruits. Therefore it is proved that the complainants suffered loss, as rightly held by the District Forum below.
13. Moreover we also find that the District Forum below has rightly considered the reports of the Agricultural Assistant and Agricultural Supervisor for the assessment of the said compensation. The District Forum below in para No.10 of each of the impugned order has rightly considered the documents on record to hold that the complainants suffered loss of Rs.1,82,130/- in complaint No.15/2013 and Rs.1,69,521/- in complaint No.16/2013. There is no reason to interfere with the compensation assessed and awarded by the District Forum on the basis of the documents filed on record.
14. We thus hold that both the impugned orders are legal, correct and proper and needs no interference in these four appeals. Hence both impugned orders needs to be confirmed in this appeal. Hence order.
// ORDER // All these four appeal bearing No.FA/14/133, FA/14/134, A/14/231 and A/14/232 are hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs in the appeal.
III. Copy of this order be furnished to both the parties free of cost. [HON'BLE MR. B.A.SHAIKH] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. S B SAWARKAR] MEMBER