Ramsuyash Pandey vs C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd

PETITIONER in this case, who was complainant before the District Forum, filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for compensation and restoration of disrupted power supply. The petitioner had a power supply connection of the respondent company for supply to 5 H.P. motor for his tube-well. On 23.5.2010, wire of the electric supply line was stolen and power supply to the tube-well got disrupted. The petitioner requested the respondent company to restore the supply but the same was not done and hence the consumer complaint came to be filed. According to the respondents, the power supply was restored on 09.07.2010 after carrying out the survey of the area, the respondent company had issued necessary work order for laying new wire in place of the stolen wire. The work of restoration was completed at the earliest and the petitioner had no right to claim compensation in the matter. The District Forum vide its order dated 19.11.2010 partly accepted the complaint and directed the respondent company to pay Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner for mental agony caused to him along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (State Commission, for short) for enhancement of the awarded amount. Another appeal was filed by the respondent company challenging the order of the District Forum with the State Commission. Since none appeared for the appellant, State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine and also for want of prosecution at admission hearing stage without notice to the respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

WE have heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. It was pointed out by him that after dismissal of his appeal in limine, he had also filed an application dated 10.1.2011 praying for review of the impugned order but the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the State Commission. A copy of which is placed at page 21 of the record. The petitioner further submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent company before the State Commission has also been dismissed by the State Commission vide a separate order dated 30.3.2011, by which order the order of the District Forum has been upheld confirming the quantum of compensation of Rs.7,000/- awarded by the District Forum for mental agony. In the circumstances, the petitioner submitted that since the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent company has been upheld by the Forabelow, his prayer for enhancement of the amount of the compensation is suitable. There is no other legal issue involved in the matter. Perusal of the record indicates that the District Forum has awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- for mental agony suffered by the petitioner. State Commission on appeal has upheld the amount as adequate and refused to interfere with the quantum thereof. We do not find any reason or justification to interfere with the impugned order through this revision petition. We, therefore, dismiss this revision petition as devoid of any merit at the threshold with no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.