BHANWARA RAM vs PRESIDENT, R.S.E.B.

THESE revisions arise out of a common order dated 10.1.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur dismissing six appeals against the order dated 5.8.1997 of a District Forum dismissing the complaints separately filed by the petitioners.

PETITIONERS had agricultural connections at their wells which were being used for irrigating the land situated in village Jawla in Tehsil Parbatsar (Distt. Nagaur). A 100 K.V. transformer was installed for regulating supply of electricity to the agriculturists in general. PETITIONERS alleged that though the transformer was burnt on 10.6.1996 it was replaced on 3.9.1996 after a delay of more than three months. For want of supply of electricity the crops dried. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on part of respondent/opposite party Board the petitioners filed complaints seeking compensation which were contested by filing written version(s) by the respondent. Respondent alleged that the information regarding burning of transformer was received by it on 27.7.1996 and transformer was replaced on 22.8.1996. It was also alleged that there was rainfall in Nagaur District in June and July, 1996 and no loss was sustained by the petitioners. Replacement of transformer was made without any undue delay within a short span of 26 days. As may be seen from the impugned order the State Commission returned the finding that transformer was replaced within a short span of 26 days by the respondent Board of its having learnt of the burning of transformer, petitioners have not given any figure and/or details of loss claimed and in absence thereof alleged loss could not be quantified. Order further notices that there was rainfall in District Nagaur in June and July, 1996 which fact was not denied by the petitioners. Conclusion to the said effect was based on the evidence adduced in the case.

Contention advanced by Mr. T.P. Roy for petitioners is that the said conclusion reached by the State Commission is erroneous and he wants us to re-appraise the documents and evidence. In our view, re-appraisal of documents and evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission affirming the order of District Forum dismissing the complaints. Dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.