PRAKASH/RAMAKANT G.DESHMUKH vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board

THE complainant submitted a complaint alleging the deficiency in the service of the opposite party as regards the supply of electricity. THE complainant alleged that he owned a field S.No. 93 where he has a well and had obtained the electricity connection for irrigation of his land. THE electricity connection is bearing No. AGP-165 meant for three H.P. electric motor. THE complainant alleged that on 4.10.91 his electricity supply was stopped and, therefore, he made a complaint on 7.10.91 with opposite party No. 2 at Paradsinga Office. He further alleged the written complaint with opposite party No. 2 for refusing to acknowledge his complaint and, therefore, on 8.10.91, he lodged another complaint to one Shri Dharmale, Assistant Engineer of M.S.E.B. at Katol. THE said officer agreed to look into the complaint. It is alleged by the complainant that opposite party No. 2 knowing fully well about the refusal to acknowledge the complaint on 7.10.91 deliberately made a false report against the complainant alleging that the complainant has been using 5 HP motor instead of 3 HP Motor which caused the loss to the M.S.E.B. According to complainant, the said notice of O.P. No. 2 was made with a view to cover his lapses and to create evidence against the complainant. THE complainant further alleged that on the contrary the O.P. No. 2 sent a notice to the complainant to pay Rs. 684/- for the loss caused to the M.S.E.B,. before 14.10.91. THE complainant further alleged that due to the disconnection of electric supply to his electric motor, his cauliflower crop in seven acres land was very badly affected. THE complainant stated that in the same field there was chilli and tomato crops. He further stated that there were 700 orange trees. THE complainant, therefore, alleged that as a result of negligence on the part of the M.S.E.B. by not restoring the electric supply for several days, his vegetable crops as well as orange trees were badly affected. THE complainant, therefore, has claimed the compensation of Rs. 1,77,187.50 towards the loss of vegetables crop and oranges. THE complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 200/- towards the travelling expenses and Court expenses,

IN response to the notice of this Commission u/Sec. 13(2) of the C.P. Act, 1986, the opposite party No. 1 sent its written version by post on 24.2.1992. However, the opposite party No. 2 did not file any written version although there were allegations made against him personally. The complaint was fixed for hearing on 11.3.92, but none of the opposite parties attended the hearing although they had received the notice of the date of hearing by registered post. The two acknowledgements of having received the notice from this Commission by the opposite parties 1 and 2 are placed on record. But none of the opposite parties attended the hearing of this Commission. Hence, we proceeded ex-pane against the opposite party. On the date of hearing, the complainant was present and submitted his affidavit. We, therefore, pass this ex-parte order against the opposite parties for the reasons given below:-

The complainant has filed an affidavit duly sworn in before the Judicial Magistrate dated 9.3.1992. In that affidavit, the complainant has verified the allegations made in his complaint as regards the disconnection of electricity to his 3HP motor from 4.10.91 till 16.10.91. In support of his allegations, the complainant has filed a zerox copy of his application dated 7.10.91. In that application the complainant had made it clear that the electric line in that area was stopped since last 15 days. He also alleged that as a result of fluctuating voltage electric meter pumps of many cultivators were damaged. The complainant further stated that due to scanty rains in that area, during the rainy season of 1991, the crops were being kept alive with irrigation by motor pump only. The complainant has clearly indicated in the said application Ex. ''I'' that there were chilli, tomato, vegetables and orange trees in the field. The complainant had clearly pointed out in that letter and that in case of loss of crops, the M.S.E.B. would be responsible. The contents of the said application are very eloquent as regards the apprehension of the complainant about the likely damages due to stoppage of electricity.

THE complainant has stated in his complaint that he tendered his application dated 7.10.91 in the Office of the O.P. No. 2 at Paradisinga but the O.P. No. 2 refused to accept and acknowledge the receipt of that complaint and, therefore, he had to rush on the next day i.e. on 3.10.91 to one Shri Dharmale, Assistant Engineer of the M.S.E.B. at Katol. According to the complainant, as a counter blast to his complaint, the O.P. No. 2, intentionally sent a false notice antidated 7.10.91 to the complainant alleging that he had installed illegally a 5 HP electric motor on his well as a result of which the electric line was burnt out and demanded from the complainant Rs. 684/- for the replacement of the wire. THE said notice sent by opposite party No. 2 is marked at Ex. ''2'' and demand note is marked as Ex. ''3'' on record. THE complainant sent another letter addressed to Sub- Engineer, Paradsinga on 11.10.91 in which he denied the allegations of having installed 5 HP electric motor on his well. He also denied the allegations contained in the notice of Opposite Party No. 2 at Ex. 2 and again repeated the allegations of the stoppage of electricity to his field and likelihood of the damage is his crops for want of irrigation. THE copy of that letter filed by complainant is at Ex. 4. THE complainant again on 15.10.91 sent a written complaint to the Executive Engineer of the M.S.E.B. at Katol alleging that the electric line to his field has been stopped and that he is unable to irrigate the land. THE complainant further denied the installation of 5 HP motor pump in his field as alleged by opposite party No. 2 in his notice. THE aforesaid allegations contained in the complaint of the complainant have been verified on oath by the complainant in his affidavit dated 9.3.1992. As against these allegations, there is no denial from O.P. No. 2. THE M.S.E.B. however, tried to deny the allegations made by the complainant. THE O.P. did not place on record any convincing evidence to show that the complainant had installed 5 HP Motor on his well and that he was using it. Except the notice Ex. 2, there is nothing to show that complainant was really using 5HP electric motor on the well. In our view, the stand taken by the M.S.E.B. appears to be made to counter blast the complainant''s complaint dated 7.10.91 which he lodged at the office of opposite party No. 2 at Paradsinga. We also find that none of the facts stated by O.P. No. 1 in written reply are verified on oath or supported by affidavit. THEre is again an attempt on the part of the O.P. No. 2 to create a false evidence. THE complainant has filed copy of his complaint dated 7.10.91 lodged at Paradsinga which is at Ex. 1. He has submitted another complaint to the Assistant Engineer on 11.10.91. It is the allegation of the complainant that the O.P. No. 2 refused to acknowledge his application dated 7.10.1991. However, in a similar copy placed on record by O.P. No. 1, the said application dated 11.10.91 is purported to be received on 12.10.91. Somebody had singed in token of having received that copy. This is nothing but an attempt to cover up the lapse on the part of the M.S.E.B. In any case, the allegations made by the complainant are supported by the complainant''s affidavit dated 9.3.92 and the documents Ex. 1, 2, 3 and 4 placed on record. THE complainant in order to get the electricity line, deposited the amount of Rs. 684/- with the opposite party under protest and accordingly informed the Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Katol by letter dated 15.10.91. A copy of which is placed on record at Ex.5. Thus, we are satisfied that the complainant has proved his allegations that his electric line was stopped during the period from 4.10.91 till 16.10.91 for a period of 12 days. THE line was reconnected on 16.10.91. THE opposite party No. 1 has clearly stated in para 3 of its written version that the line was stopped from 2.10.91 till 16.10.91 and on payment of the amount Rs. 684/- the M.S.E.B. reconnected the line. Being the mere statement of the O.P. No. 1, in their written version no other evidence has been adduced to prove that the complainant had installed 5 H.P. Motor on his well. In our view, therefore, there was no justification for the M.S.E.B. to ask the complainant to pay Rs. 684/-. THE complainant has emphathetically denied to have installed a 5 H.P. motor in his field. Yet, he was blamed for burning out the electric line and was penalised to pay Rs. 684/- for not fault on his part. In our view, there was complete negligence on the part of the M.S.E.B. to maintain the electric supply to the complainant''s land. THE act on the part of the M.S.E.B. to stop the supply of electricity to a cultivator for considerable days when there were no rains is a deficiency in the service. THE complainant had planned horticulture crops in the hope of continuous supply of electricity for irrigation purpose. THE necessity of irrigation was more due the bad monsoon in that year. It was, therefore, expected continuous electric supply. Under these circumstances, we are fully satisfied that there was deficiency in the service of the opposite party. THE complainant was not only prevented from irrigating his land but also was wrongly penalised to pay Rs. 684/- for burning electric line by falsely alleging use of 5 H.P. motor. The complainant has claimed that there was cauliflower crop. It is stated in the certificate that the cauliflower crop was planted under the supervision of the Development Officer in S.No. 93. It is also stated in the said certificate that due to stoppage of electricity by the M.S.E.B., the complainant''s crop has been completely damaged. Thus, the denial of opposite party No. 1 about the complainant not having the crop stated by him in his complaint in field S. No. 93 is false. We fail to understand why the M.S.E.B. should prepare a false record to oppose a legitimate complaint of a cultivator when he has really suffered due to the negligence of the M.S.E.B. We clearly find that the M.S.E.B. has been protecting its Sub-Engineer, Opposite Party No. 2 although he has indulged in creating a false record. We fail to understand that when it was the case of the M.S.E.B. that the complainant was responsible for the burn out of the electric line, then why the evidence about the complainant using 5 H.P. motor was not tendered in this case? It is, therefore, evident that the complainant used 5 H.P. electric motor is connected story, built up by the opposite party No. 2. It is wrong on the part of the M.S.E.B. to protect, such officials and in fact suitable punitive action is called for against the erring official for falsely putting the blame on the complainant for having caused loss to the M.S.E.B. and recovering unjustly Rs. 684/-.

AS regards the estimate of loss, the complainant has claimed that there was a crop of cauliflower in seven acres of his land in S. No. 93. He has stated that there were 700 orange trees apart from chilli crop. In para 5 of the complaint the complainant has stated that he had planted 87500 cauliflower plant. He has stated that giving allowance to 10% damage of the crops, he expected from 8750 cauliflowers, the yield of 1 kg. cauliflower to each plant. Estimating the price of Rs. 2.50 per kg., cauliflower, he has estimated the loss at Rs. 1,77,187.50. There is nothing to disbelieve the yield of crops as mentioned by the complainant and the probable income which he would have got had there been no damage to his crops. Considering the loss of cauliflower crops in complainant''s field, we find it safe to estimate the loss of complainant for Rs. 25,000/- giving allowance to the fall in prices to a minimum limit. In our view, therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if we grant Rs. 25,000/- as the compensation. Similarly, we find that the complainant had to undertake travelling for making his complaint and also spend money for the court expenses. We would like to grant the complainant an amount of Rs. 2,000/- to cover the Court expenses and the travelling done to seek the redress in this case. Similarly, the M.S.E.B. is also liable to return Rs. 684/- to the complainant which was recovered from him unjustly. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER The opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the loss of crops suffered by him and Rs. 2000/- for the expenses and cost of the litigation and the amount of Rs. 684/- recovered from him for the burning of the wire. The aforesaid amount shall be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till realisation. Complaint allowed with cost. ____________