KASHMIR SINGH GIL vs M P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

BOTH these Appeal Nos. 2157/2006 by the complaint and 2314/2006 by the opposite party, arise from the same order dated 11. 9. 2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhind in Case No. 145/2006, hence taken up together.

THE complainant, Kashmir Singh Gill, who is a resident of village Taton, has a 5 HP, 3-phase domestic connection. The dispute arose when the opposite party, MPMKVVC (hereinafter referred to as the Board) did not provide 3-phase power supply for 9 months, from 1. 9. 2003 to 4. 7. 2004, due to which the complainant was not able to irrigate his fields with his electric pump. He sent 16 letters to the Board complaining about the power supply, but there was no response from them. The complainant states that he had to hire an alternator and purchase diesel worth Rs. 59,297 for irregating his fileds. The Board, in their reply, have admitted that the transformer of the village had burnt and was inoperative from 1. 9. 2003 to 25. 9. 2003. They state that no electricity charges were taken during that period. They further state that the transformer was not repaired as dues worth Rs. 79,946 were pending from 14 consumers belonging to the complainant''s village.

We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel of both the parties and perused the documents on record.

THE Board has admitted that the transformer of the village was burnt. They have filed a list of names of 14 consumers from whom electricity charges were due in the month of October 2003. However, the 3-phase power supply was stopped in September 2003. They have not shown how much amount was pending in August 2003, prior to the discontinuation of 3-phase power supply. They have also not filed any documents to demonstrate that any notice or warning was given to the villagers. Even after the transformer was burnt, no intimation was given tot the complainant or to the villagers, despite repeated queries, as to why it was not repaired. If we accept the Board''s argument that the power supply was not restored due to pending dues, then it logically follows that it must have been restored only when the arrears were recovered from the villagers. But the Board has not filed any document to show what was the amount recovered by them, before the supply was resumed. It is quite apparent that the burnt transformer was not repaired due to negligence on the part of the employees of the Board, and the plea that it was not done as arrears were due from the villagers, appears to be an afterthought.

IN our considered view, the Board was deficient in service in not repairing the transformer within a reasonable period of time. We find ourselves in full agreement with the Forum below regarding the assessment of compensation awarded to the complainant and see no reason to enhance it further. In the result, both appeals fail and are dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. This order be retained in appeal No. 2157/2006 and a copy be placed in the record of Appeal No. 2314/2006. Appeals dismissed.