M.S.E.B. (EXECUTIVE ENGINEER) vs SHANKARLAL LILADHAR BHUTADA

THIS appeal filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) is directed against the award dated 30.9.2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldana. Forum below awarded Rs. 17,500 to the respondent/complainant by way of compensation. MSEB has taken exception to the award and has filed present appeal.

WE heard learned Advocate Mr. A.E. Deshmukh for the appellants and Mr. J.U. Kothari, Advocate for the respondent. The complainant owns and possess a piece of agricultural land bearing consolidation No. 85 admeasuring 3 Hectors and 63 Aares at Mouje Dongarkhed, a hamlet of village Shegaon, Taluka Shegaon, District Buldana. In 2005 he had raised vegetables, onion and melon in his land. He had brought water from river Purna with permission of the Government. He has taken electric supply from MSEB. MSEB without any intimation discontinued the electric supply. Complainant, therefore, could not water his standing crops. For want of water, he could not get any yield. He suffered heavy losses. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint. He claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000 from MSEB. MSEB resisted the complaint. MSEB raised defence that the disconnection of electricity was inevitable by act of Government. Forum below recorded a finding that disconnection of electric supply without individual notice is a deficiency in service. Consequently Forum below allowed the complaint and passed impugned award, which is under challenge.

It is admitted fact that the supply of electricity was discontinued by Tahsilar. There was severe scarcity of drinking water. In order to make available drinking water to the persons residing in the nearby villages, Tahsildar suspended electric supply. Deputy Executive Engineer of MSEB was ordered to suspend the electric supply. Acting on the order of Tahsildar, electric supply was suspended, in order to make available drinking water to the persons residing in different villages. Electric supply was again restored when it was found that there was no scarcity of drinking water in the villages nearby the river. Factually it is correct that the electric supply was discontinued. From perusal of the record, it is seen that the Junior Engineer of MSEB tried to intimate the villagers and obtained their signatures. Respondent herein was absent from the village and, therefore, personal intimation could not be served on him.

REAL issue is as to whether the individual notice was necessary. Having examined the cause for suspension of electric supply, we are of the clear opinion that individual notice is not necessary. Disconnection of electric supply was inevitable because of command of Government. Order of Tahsildar was sub-poena (order of Government). Tahsildar having noticed the scarcity of drinking water in number of villages, rightly thought it fit to suspend the electric supply of Agriculturists for time-being. The demand for drinking water in case of scarcity of water is very important issue for the Government. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the demand of public for drinking water, Tahsildar immediately directed Deputy Executive Engineer of MSEB to discontinue electric supply. Necessitas publica major est quam privata NECESSITAS PUBLICA MAJOR EST QUAM PRIVATA. (The public demand for drinking water is supreme than the individual demand for water to the land). When number of villages are facing acute shortage of drinking water, it was the duty of the Government to look into the matter and to make drinking water available to the common man. For doing so, some drastic action is required to be taken. Few persons cannot make grievance for withdrawal of electric supply under given circumstances. Having regard to the dimension of the issue with regard to drinking water, complainant cannot expect individual notice. In such type of cases, individual notice is not necessary. There was no fault on the part of MSEB in the matter of suspension of electric supply. The suspension of electric supply for few days was inevitable due to act of Government. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service. Forum below has not digested the issue properly and has passed erroneous order. In the result, we pass following order: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. Impugned award under challenge is quashed and set aside. 3. Complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed. 4. No order as to costs. 5. Pronounced and dictated in the open Court.

Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties. Appeal allowed.