State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sudhir Laxmanrao Mahajan vs Mahrashtra State Electricity Board on 30 November, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
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/01/1506
(Arisen out of
Order Dated 25/07/2001 in Case No. cc/237/2000 of District Chandrapur)
1. Sudhir Laxmanrao Mahajan
Subhash Chouk, Wardha, Post & Distt.Wardha
Wardha
Maharashtra
2. Vijay Laxmanrao Mahajan
Subhash Chouk, Wardha Post & Distt.Wardha
Wardha
Maharashtra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Mahrashtra state Electricity Board,Through
Dy.Executive Engineer Rural Electrict
Supply and
Agricultural department,
Warora,M.S.E.B.,warora,Distt.Chandrapur
Chandrapur, Maharashtra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM MEMBER
PRESENT: Adv.Kandhari for the appellant
None
ORDER
(passed on 30/11/2012) PER SHRI.S.M.SHEMBOLE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This appeal is an exception to the judgment and order dated 25/07/2001 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in CC No. 297/00 partly allowing the complaint and directing the Respondent MSEB to supply electric connection to the field of the appellants and further directing to pay compensation and cost of Rs.2000/- to the appellants. (For the sake of brevity, appellants are hereinafter referred as 'complainants' and Respondents as Opponents)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants are the owners of field survey No.52 at village Yerkheda having a well therein. In the year 1994, they applied for electric connection and their application was granted by the Opponent MSEB in the month of April,1994 and poles were erected and the line was also laid upto the field of the complainants however, despite completing all the formalities, actual electric supply was not given. Therefore, according to the complainants they could not irrigate their field and thereby sustained loss. However, though the electric supply was not given, the Opponent issued bills and therefore, they approached the authorities of Opponent and requested to cancel those bills. However, no cognizance was taken. Therefore the complainants filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum Chandrapur claiming cancellation of electric bills and also issuing direction to the Opponent to supply electric connection. They also claimed compensation at Rs.175,000/- towards loss of agricultural income and also loss sustained due to payment of interest on bank loan. They also claimed compensation at Rs.1 lac for causing physical and mental harassment. Thus they have claimed total compensation Rs.2,99,000/- with interest @14% p.a.
3. In response to the complaint notice, Opponent MSEB appeared before the District Forum and resisted the complaint vide its written version. It is not disputed that in the year 1994 the complainant had applied for electric connection and their application was granted by the Opponent MSEB in the month of April,1994 and poles were erected and the line was also laid upto the field of the complainants however, it is denied that actual electric supply was not given to the complainant. It is not disputed that electric bills were issued to the complainant but it is denied that they were issued without providing electric supply etc. It is submitted that on 30/12/1994 the electric supply was provided to the complainants and entry to that effect was also taken in its record allotting consumer No.as AG/73. It is submitted that the electric connection of 5 HP was provided and accordingly the bills were issued from time to time but the complainant have failed to pay the bills. It is submitted that the complainants have filed false complaint with intention to avoid to pay the electricity bills etc. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both the sides, the District Consumer Forum held that though poles were erected and the line was also laid upto the field of the complainants, despite completing all the formalities by the complainants, actual electric supply was not given and inspite of that electric bills were issued. In keeping with these findings, the District Forum partly allowed the complainat directing the appellant to supply electric connection to the field of the appellants and further directing to pay compensation and cost of Rs.2000/- to the appellants.
5. Not being satisfied by the same judgment and order, the complainants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
6. Inspite of issuance of notice before admission nobody turned up therefore, the appeal is proceeded exparte.
7. We heard Shri. Girish Kandhari Ld. counsel for the appellant and perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and the copies of complaint, reply submitted by the opponent, and other documents produced by the appellant along with appeal.
8. The undisputed facts are that in the year 1994 the complainant had applied for electric connection and their application was granted by the Opponent MSEB in the month of April,1994 and poles were erected and the line was also laid upto the field of the complainants. Thereafter, since 1995, electric bills were also regularly issued to the complainants and last bill dated 20/11/2001 for Rs.19913/- was issued but the complainant have failed to pay the bills. They approached the officials of the Respondent board and requested to cancel those bills informing that the electric supply was not provided. Thereafter, on the directions of executive engineer of Opponent Board to the Dy.Executive Engineer, the inspection was made and it was found that electric connection was not given etc. However, as the bills were not cancelled and the electric supply was not given, the complainants filed consumer complaint.
9. After passing the impugned judgment and order, the electric connection is already given to the field of the complainant/appellant on 2/11/2001 and also paid amount of Rs.2000/- to the complainants, thereby the Opponent board has complied the order.
10.However, though the complainants/appellant in their complaint sought direction for cancellation of electricity bills, no specific order to that effect is passed by the District Consumer Forum.
However, complainant/appellant Shri.Sudhir Mahajan submitted before this commission that the amount of disputed bills is not paid by him and also by his brother appellant No.2 Vijay. The Respondent Board also has not claimed the amount of bills after filing the complaint etc. Therefore, the question of cancellation of those bills does not survive.
11.In view of the above undisputed facts, the only question arises in this appeal is as to whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation ?
It is submitted by Shri.Kandhari, Ld.counsel for the appellant that as it is held by the District Consumer Forum that the electric supply was not given to the complainants and the same finding is remained unchallenged, it is obvious that the appellants/complainants were not provided with electric supply in their field and, therefore, they sustained loss etc. It is further submitted that if the electric supply would have been given to the appellants in the year 1994 itself, they could have irrigated their field and would have earned income more than Rs.35000/- per year and, therefore, they are entitled to get compensation as claimed in their complaint.
12.But except bare words of the complainants/appellants, there is no evidence on record to show that they sustained any loss due to non availability of electric supply in their field. It is not their contention that they have not cultivated their field till the supply of electric connection on 2/11/2001. Even no details about the earlier agricultural income and also their income after getting the electric supply are given. Even they have not disclosed in their complaint nor filed any affidavit of any adjoining land owner that there is sufficient water in the well situated in their field. Therefore, the District Consumer Forum, without considering their claim for compensation pertaining to the loss of agricultural income has rightly awarded amount of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost of proceeding.
13. We have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri.Kandhari, Ld.counsel for the appellant and also the evidence on record and we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
14.In the result, the appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER The appeal is Dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
[ Hon'ble Mr.S.M. Shembole] PRESIDING MEMBER [ HON'BLE MR.N. ARUMUGAM] MEMBER