CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD vs Raveendran

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 5 September 2003 · Citation: 2003 3 CPR 145 : 2003 4 CPJ 105 : 2004 1 CLT 54 : 2004 1 CPC 34

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.P.Wadhwa , B.K.Taimni , K.S.Gupta J.
RESULT
Appeal disposed of
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 340 words
1.

OPPOSITE party is now the appellant before us. It was case of the complainant-respondent that he was running a plastic factory. When on account of fall in the voltage in the electricity supply by the appellant, machines were damaged and production suffered. Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed the complaint. Complainant, it appears, had taken a loan for running this industry from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC). In the complaint, he claimed compensation of Rs. 3,19,693/- comprising, (1) Rs. 1,29,693/- towards interest paid to the KFC; (2) Rs. 26,000/- towards the interest to be paid to Canara Bank; (3) Rs. 42,000/- towards the interest on capital invested by him; (4) Rs. 72,000/- towards the business loss; and (5) Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony. State Commission, however, gave him the following reliefs : "In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties are directed : (a) to provide uninterrupted supply of sufficient quantity of electrical energy to consumer No. 6676 for the functioning of the factory; (b) to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to complainant for the business loss suffered; (c) to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by the complainant; (d) to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost to the complainant."

2.

AGGRIEVED KSEB has come up with an appeal. We do not think direction issued by the State Commission for providing uninterrupted supply of electrical energy could be sustained keeping in view the terms of supply of electricity to the complainant. No evidence was given for the alleged business loss suffered by the complainant. We, therefore, modify the impugned order of the State Commission as under : "We award Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and sufferings for the loss to the complainant. Rs. 2,000/- as cost as awarded by the State Commission in the appeal."

In the circumstances of the case, we award a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the respondent/complainant. Thus in all, complainant could be entitled to Rs. 14,000/-. With this modification, appeal is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.