B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED vs PRIT SINGH

THE present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by District Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 104/2003 entitled Shri Prit Singh v. Executive Engineer, DVB (Now BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.)

BRIEFLY stated, the facts are, that the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') before the District Forum on the ground that the complainant was the registered consumer of electricity through connection bearing K.No. 222 1228215J325AP under the category of agricultural power. The said connection was providing electricity to the tube-well of the respondent. However, the transformer supplying electricity to the said tube-well got burnt on 24.12.2002 and in the absence of electricity the tube-well become non-functional, as a result the respondent could not cultivate his fields resulting in huge losses to the respondent. The representation of the respondent dated 24.12.2002 and 26.12.2002 requesting for the change of transformer fell on deaf ears and as such the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for directions to the appellant to provide electricity at the tube-well of the respondent without further delay and to award Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. The stand of the O.P. before the District Forum was that no electricity was being supplied to the respondent since 24.12.2002 on account of the transformer having got burnt and also on account of theft of wires. Furthermore, the consumers to whom the electric supply was fed through the transformer in question had not cleared the dues and as such the same could not be replaced resulting in delay in supply of energy to the respondent.

The learned District Forum on the basis of material on record held that appellant was deficient in service and as such directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have carefully perused the documents/material placed on record and have also heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant at the admission stage. The only ground raised in the present appeal is that award of compensation is on the higher side. However, considering the fact that the respondent has been deprived of electric supply for a period of one year i.e., from 24.12.2002 to March 2003 and has been unable to cultivate his fields in the absence of water from the tube-well, the quantum of compensation awarded appears to be justified. Thus there being no infirmity in the impugned order, which is a detailed and well reasoned order, the present appeal, filed by the appellant, is directed to be dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.