State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman,Maharashtra State ... vs Kum Khushnuma A.Anklesaria & Ors. on 1 November, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI First Appeal No. 1699/2006 Date of Filing: @ M.A. No. 2001/2006 Complaint No. 130/2003 District Consumer Forum: Raigad Date of Order: 01/11/2008 1.The Chairman, Appellants Maharashtra State Electricity Board, (Org.Opp.Parties nos.1 to7) Prakash Gad, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra(East) 2.Chief Engineer Distribution, MSEB. 3. Chief Engineer Commercial, MSEB, Address as above. 4. Executive Engineer(Rural), MSEB, P.B. No.118, Panvel, Dist- Raigad. 5. Superintendent Engineer, MSEB, Alibaug, District- Raigad. 6. Junior Engineer, MSEB, Thal, Tal- Alibaug, Dist- Raigad. V/s 1. Kum Khushnuma A.Anklesaria, Respondents Alias Smt. Khushnuma A. Gill, (Org.Complainant nos. 1 & 2) R/at- Nargis Villa, Fravashi Farm, Thal, Tal- Alibaug, Dist- Raigad. 2. Smt Nargis A. Anklesaria, R/at- Ankaran Fravashi Farm, Thal, Tal- Alibag, Dist- Raigad. (through CPA Shri Aspi D.Anklesaria) Corum : Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri S.P.Lale, Honble Member.
Present:
Adv.Subodh Gokhale for the appellants.
Adv.Kaushal Tamhane for the respondents.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member The org. opposite parties have filed this appeal being dissatisfied with the judgement and award passed by District Consumer Forum, Alibaug, whereby the opposite parties have been directed to reconnect high tension line to the house of the complainant or alternatively to pay Rs. 3,08,354/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% p.a. from 14/06/1991 and also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- for the mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- by way of cost of the complaint. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
According to the complainants, they are owing field survey no 230/1 and have constructed a bunglow in the said field at village Thal, Tal- Alibaug, Dist- Raigad since 1976, they have taken high tension electricity connection one for their agricultural farm and other for their house. In July- 1989 there was a cyclone and in the said cyclone two electricity poles were damaged and the supply line from those poles to the house of the complainant got disturbed. The insulator was rendered useless and resultantly the electric supply came to be disconnected. The complainant informed MSEB officials about the same. Even after passage of 8 months, the MSEB did not bother to reconnect the electric supply to the house of the complainant. At the direction of MSEB officials, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,75,650/- with the office of opp.party on 04/04/1990. The high tension line was accordingly given. The MSEB further charged Rs.9,215/- for giving additional 60 kilo voltage to the house of the complainant. On 13/09/1990 the complainant paid further amount of Rs.32,770/- for laying down new under ground cable. Further expenses as required were also incurred by the complainant. The total expenses made by the complainant for procuring the high tension line was Rs.3,08,354/-. In Oct.-1990 the opp.party reconnected the electricity line by installing separate transformer in the premises of the complainant. However, the contractor carried out the work half hazardously and therefore, in the rainy season there was repeated disturbance in the electricity in the house of the complainant. At the direction of Collector, Raigad, the MSEB officials discontinued the electricity supply to the house of the complainant because there was likelihood of accident owing to high tension line. According to the complainant, between Oct-90 to 14/06/1991 for less than one year electric supply was given. But thereafter, it was discontinued and no action was taken for restoration of electric supply. Since June-1991, the complainant was required to use diesel generator for generating electricity. Even from 14/06/1991 despite there being total disconnection of electric supply, the complainants were receiving electricity bills. According to the complainant, for about 12 years there has been disconnection of electric supply from high tension line and therefore, their motor pump, refrigerator, lift etc. have been damaged. They could not maintain flower trees and fruit trees in absence of electric energy in their farm house. They sent notice on 28/10/2002 to Executive Engineer, MSEB, Alibaug but no action was taken on receipt of said notice. But the Executive Engineer gave false reply to their notice. According to the complainant, despite incurring huge expenses of Rs.3,08,354/- they could not get electricity connection from high tension cable and therefore, the MSEB is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. As such, they filed consumer complaint and claimed refund of Rs.3,08,354/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and also claimed compensation for mental agony and cost.
Opp.party filed written statement and pleaded that because of order passed by Collector, Raigad they could not reconnect the electric supply to the house of the complainant. According to the MSEB officials, there was some strong opposition from the villagers for continuing the electric supply to the house of the complainant from high tension line because villagers apprehended that there would be accidental mishap because of high tension line going to the house of the complainant. The Forum below found that despite making huge payment of more than Rs.3 lakhs, the complainant was not being given electricity supply through high tension line and therefore, it was guilty of deficiency in service and as such, the complaint was allowed and award was passed against MSEB officials. As such, the MSEB has filed this appeal.
We heard Adv.Subodh Gokhale for the appellant and Adv.Kaushal Tamhane for the respondents.
We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper. When a consumer has incurred huge expenses to get electric supply in their farm house and bunglow, it was the bounden duty of the appellant to provide high tension line to the complainant to supply the electric energy uninterruptedly to the farm house as well as to the bunglow of the complainant. The argument of Counsel for the appellant that there was opposition of the villagers and that is why Collector, Raigad had asked them to stop the electric supply to the house of the complainant, is wrong. Even if there had been some sort of opposition from the villagers still when the appellant company had accepted an amount of Rs.3 lakhs for reconnection of the electric line through high tension line or high tension underground cable, it was its duty to reconnect the electric supply to the farm house and bunglow of the complainant. The matter of stiff opposition should have been sorted out by the intervention of revenue officers and by convincing the villagers that there would not be any sort of accidental mishap in the reconnection of the electricity to the house of complainant. So, the officials of the appellant failed in their duty to give uninterrupted electric supply to the farm house and bunglow of the complainant. Therefore, the Forum below rightly directed the appellant to restore the electric supply through high tension line to the house of the complainant or alternatively to refund Rs.3,08,354/- with interest 10% to the complainant till 14/06/91. The said order in the circumstances passed by the Forum below is just and proper. It is maintainable in law and we are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by MSEB Company. Hence, we pass following order:-
:-ORDER-:
1.
Appeal stands dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the appellant to the respondent.
2. Declared in open court.
3. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member. Nbh