State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant Engineer,Maharashtra State ... vs Sunil Ramaji Bhoyar on 28 June, 2012
Daily Order
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT NAGPUR
5 TH FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING NO. 1
CIVIL LINES, NAGPUR-440 001
First Appeal No. A/08/277 ( Not in Confonet)
(Arisen out of Order Dated 11/02/2008 in Case No. CC/07/164 of
Additional District Forum, Nagpur.)
Assistant Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd.,Sub Division Khaperkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
Sunil Ramaji Bhoyar,
Res. Dahegaon Rangari,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING
MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL MEMBER
PRESENT:
Adv. Smt. Deo
......for the Appellant
Adv. Mr. Solat
......for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 28/06/2012) PER MR. S.M. SHEMBOLE, HON'BLE PRESIDING MEMBER
1. This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 11/02/2008 passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No.164/2007 partly allowing the complaint directing the opponents/appellants-M.S.E.D.C.L to provide electricity connection to the flour mill of the complaint/respondent and further to pay compensation Rs.6,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- more for mental agony and cost of proceeding.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order opponents/appellants- M.S.E.D.C.L. has preferred the appeal.
3. We heard counsel for both the sides, perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copy of complaint, written version and considering the facts of the case we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission.
Brief facts giving raise to this appeal are that,
4. Complainant/Respondent is a unemployed person who decided to run Flour Mill by borrowing loan from S.B.I. and applied for electric connection with the opponents/appellants-M.S.E.D.C.L. On his application, estimate and demand note of Rs. 30,334/- was given to the complainant/respondent and on 21/07/2006 complainant/ respondent paid the same amount to the opponents/appellants-M.S.E.D.C.L. However, the electric supply was not given by the opponents/appellants- M.S.E.D.C.L. Therefore, the complainant/ respondent made consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service, claiming compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- more towards the cost of proceeding and further submitted to direct the opponents/ appellants-M.S.E.D.C.L. to supply electric connection ,etc.
5. In response to the complaint notice, the opponents/ appellants appeared before the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur and resisted the complaint vide its written version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not its consumer as electric supply was not provided.
Further, the opponents/appellants denied all other adverse averments and submitted that complainant/respondent has not completed the required formalities i.e. submitting test report, etc. and therefore, electric connection was not given. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
6. On hearing both the sides and considering the documents on record, Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur partly allowed the complaint as noted above.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order opponents/appellants - M.S.E.D.C.L. preferred this appeal.
8. We heard counsel for both the sides, perused the copy of impugned judgment and order. It is fairly conceded by Smt. Deo, Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the electric supply was not given to the respondent/complainant as he had failed to submit the test report in spite of direction given by the opponents/appellants. However, Mr. Solat, Ld. Counsel for the complainant/ respondent denied and submitted that test report was given on 21/04/2006 only. But he could not point out as to whether the test report was received to the opponents/appellants. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order it reflects that the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur observed in the impugned judgment and order that the test report was given by the complainant/respondent on 21/07/2006, but there is no record supporting to this fact. Therefore, such observations of the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur are being baseless, can not be sustained. Therefore, we find no hesitation to accept the submission made by Smt. Deo, Ld. Counsel for the appellants/opponents that the electric connection was not given as the test report was not submitted by the complainant/respondent.
9. Smt. Deo, Ld. Counsel for the appellants/opponents submitted that on 16/01/2012 the test report was given to her by Mr. Solat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant and thereafter she forwarded the test report to the concerned officer of the appellants/opponents- M.S.E.D.C.L. and thereafter, on 06/06/20012 the appellants/opponents company supplied the electric connection to the flour mill of the complainant/respondent. Accordingly, she has filed pursis today along with copy of report of Assistant Engineer of the appellants. Thus, the appellants have complied the part of the impugned judgment and order.
10. For the forgoing reasons it is obvious that the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur without any record committed error in observing that the test report was given and in-spite of giving the test report the appellants/opponents-M.S.E.D.C.L. have not given electric connection to the respondent/complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service, etc. Such finding of the Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur is being not legal and proper can not be sustained.
11. For the forgoing reasons the appeal deserves to be allowed Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order is set aside.
2. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own cost.
Dated:-28/06/2012.
[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE SMT.JAYSHREE YENGAL] MEMBER ay