EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs JOSHRAM VISHWAKARMA

IN this revision filed by the opposite parties, challenge is to the order dated 13.4.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur partly allowing appeal against the order dated 30.9.2005 of a District Forum and reducing the amount of compensation payable to the respondent/complainant from Rs. 1,06,200 to Rs. 50,000.

MAIN thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Prakash Srivastava for petitioners is that the respondent had not adduced any evidence to show how much crop was lost due to non-availability of electric supply and communications dated 12.8.1997, 4.10.1997 and 20.10.1997 which were sent by the respondent within a span of about two months to the petitioners were not considered by the Fora below. In support of the averments made in complaint the respondent had filed his own affidavit by way of evidence before the District Forum. Para Nos. 2 to 4 of this affidavit which are material read thus: "2.The electric pole through which electricity was being supplied to village Sarwani broke on 27.5.1997 as a result of which the electric supply to my above said tubewell stopped. I met non-applicant No. 1 several times and requested him for the restoration of the electric supply. But no action was taken by the non-applicant No. 1 in this regard. I had also lodged a complaint in writing with the non-applicant No. 1 on 12.8.1997. When the non-applicant No. 1 did not take any action on my complaint, I forwarded a written complaint to the Assistant Engineer (Rural), M.P. Electricity Board on 4.10.1997. But despite that the electricity supply was not restored. In the absence of electric supply, my said tubewell could not be operated as a result of which I had to remain dependent on rain for 1997 Kharif crop. Due to insufficient rain and non-availability of water for irrigation purposes, I lost 75% of the crop on the land described in my complaint and I could obtain only 25% of the crop that too only after making alternative arrangement for irrigation. I brought the above facts to the knowledge of the Chief Engineer, M.P. Electricity Board, Bilaspur, Superintending Engineer (Sarguja) in writing through a letter dated 10.10.1997 forwarded to them by registered post. But in spite of this, the electric supply was not restored. So much so, the said letter of the complainant was not even replied. Consequently, even the remaining 25% crop was also lost.

I could not sow Rabi crop in the year 1998 and due to the paucity of water, not much Kharif crop, which I had planted in 1998, could be harvested. This situation arose because of non-restoration of electric supply. The electric supply was, ultimately, restored on 20.12.1998 and as such my tubewell could be operated w.e.f. 20.12.1998 only, which was brought to the knowledge of non-application No. 1 by me on 30.12.1998." 3. Respondent was not cross-examined on behalf of petitioners. In para No. 5 of the complaint, respondent has disclosed the details of damage suffered by him as a result of non-supply of electricity between 27.5.1997 and 20.12.1998. On the face of pleadings and evidence to the said effect it cannot be said that there is no evidence as to damage/loss to the crop due to non-supply of electricity. Three communications are only intimations and connected with evidence in the said affidavit of the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of District Forum as modified by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.