State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity Board ... vs Shriniwas Ram Savji, on 10 February, 2010
Date of filing:04.04.2005 Date of order:10.02.2010 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . F.A. NO.: 687 OF 2005 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 30 OF 2003 DISTRICT FORUM : BEED. 1. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board (O & M) Division, Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 2. The Dy.Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board (O & M) Sub Division, Parli Vaijinath, Tq.Parli Vaijinath,Dist.Beed. APPELLANT (Org.opponents) VERSUS Shriniwas Ram Savji, R/o Nagapur, Tq.Parli Vaijinath, Dist.Beed. RESPONDENT (Org.Complainant) Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.B.Kakde for respondent.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Executive Engineer, MSEB, Ambejogai, Dist.Beed challenges in this appeal order passed by Dist.Forum, Beed in complaint case No.30/03 decided on 7.2.2005.
2. The fact of the case are as under.
Complainant Shriniwas Savji is resident of Nagapur,Tq.Parli Vaijinath, Dist.Beed. complainant is owner of land survey No.199/A. He dug well in his land. As there was sufficient water in the well he applied for electric connection to the appellant. For the said connection he deposited Rs.650/- on 3.11.1987. With his application he submitted the required test report and other documents with the appellant. Thereafter he many times approached to the appellant and requested to supply electricity. But connection was not given. He made application to the appellant on 7.11.1994, 27.3.97, 18.7.98, 27.11.00, and thereafter he issued legal notice through advocate on 12.11.2001. Even then connection was not given. He received bill of Rs.1837/- for AG 315 upto Sept.1992. Therefore he approached the District Forum by demanding compensation.
3. Dist.
Forum issued notice to the appellant. After receiving notice advocate for appellant appeared. Even after giving various dates for filing written statement, written statement was not filed by appellant. Therefore no say order was passed against (opponent)appellant herein. Complainant had applied for appointment of Commissioner. Accordingly on 20.8.2003 Adv.V.P.Joshi was appointed as Court Commissioner. Notice of inspection was also issued to appellant by Commissioner. Court Commissioner visited the spot on 18.11.2004 and submitted his report.
4. After perusing record and evidence Dist. Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.42,000/- with 6% interest as compensation. Dist.Forum also directed appellant to supply the electricity immediately.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the District Forum, Beed, M.S.E.D.Co.Ltd. came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to both the parties. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale appeared for appellant, Adv.Shri.S.B.Kakde appeared for respondent. Adv.Shri.Tandale submitted that as per demand note of complainant connection was given to him in the year 1989. Therefore bills were issued to him as per his consumption. Adv.Shri.Tandale specifically prayed for remand of matter and to give chance to the appellant to file written statement and to produce evidence. He submitted that connection was already given to the complainant but with view to avoid payment of huge bill he has stated that connection wasnot given.
7. Adv.Shri.S.B.Kakde for respondent submitted that complainant has made application by depositing required amount and submitting required documents such as test report and other documents but connection was not given. He submitted that till today connection is not given to the complainant. He submitted that Dist.Forum has given ample opportunity to the appellant to file written statement and to rebut the evidence put forth by the complainant. But appellant failed to appear before the Forum. He further submitted that commissioner was appointed by Dist.Forum to inspect the land and to submit the report. Notice of visit of Commissioner was also issued to the appellant but neither advocate of appellant nor officer of appellant remained present on the date of inspection. The report of Commissioner clearly mentions that though polls were installed and wiring were done supply was not given to the complainant.
8. We heard argument of both the counsels and perused the record. Advocate of appellant mainly prayed for remand of matter to the District Forum. But complaint is of 2003 we are now in 2010 therefore it will not be just and proper to remand the complaint to Dist.Forum. Appellant was given ample opportunity by Dist.Forum to appear and contest the matter. But appellant failed to do so. At the most appellant should have prayed for remand of the matter immediately after filing of the appeal. At this stage it will be too late for remand of matter.
As all the facts in complaint remained unchallenged and un-rebutted due to non appearance of the appellant we are of the view that there is no substance in allowing the appeal and granting prayer of remand. Dist.Forum after giving opportunity to both sides and after considering Commissioners report rightly allowed the complaint. We are not inclined to interfere the order passed by the Forum. Hence the order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. Appellant to pay cost of Rs.1000/- to the respondent/org.complainant in appeal.
3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane