TARA CHAND vs D.V.B./B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LTD.

IN this revision challenge is to the order dated 22.2.2005 of State Commission, Delhi partly allowing Appeal Nos. 412/2000, 1482/2001 and 165/2002 and directing the respondents/opposite parties to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the petitioner-complainant.

PETITIONER was having electric connection No. NG 010 5398241 for agricultural purpose installed in his field bearing Khasra No. 5/1, Pindwala Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi. Sanctioned load against this electric connection was 3 HP. It was alleged that in the night of 25.3.2000 the service line of 5 poles feeding electricity to the said connection was stolen by the thieves and as a result thereof the petitioner was unable to operate his tube-well. Despite complaint lodged with the respondents on 27.3.2000 the supply of electricity was not restored by them. For want of water the crops damaged. Alleging deficiency in service the petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 512/2000 before a District Forum seeking total compensation of Rs. 95,000 under different heads. On similar allegations Complaint Case No. 5/2001 was filed seeking compensation for Rabi crop by the petitioner. PETITIONER filed yet another Complaint Case No. 737/2001 based on theft of service line on 17.5.2001. It seems that after the theft of service line on 25.3.2000 supply of electricity was restored at a later stage and thereafter, again theft of service line was committed on 17.5.2001. Complaint Case No. 512/2001 was allowed by the District Forum with direction to the respondents to pay token compensation of Rs. 3,000 to the petitioner. Complaint Case No. 5/2001 was dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that damage to the crop for Rabi season was included in Complaint Case No. 512/2001. Complaint Case No. 737/2001 was allowed with direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation for mental harassment beside cost by the District Forum. Pursuant to the order dated 26.8.2005 the petitioner has filed the copies of affidavits filed by way of evidence in Complaint Case Nos. 5/2001 and 737/2001. Affidavit filed by way of evidence in Complaint Case No. 512/2000 has, however, not been filed. Orders of District Forum in Complaint Case Nos. 512/2000 and 737/2001 would show that excepting own affidavit the petitioner had not led any evidence in regard to having suffered damage as claimed under different heads in the complaints. Two affidavits filed by way of evidence would show that those are cryptic and do not specify the basis for calculating damages/compensation claimed in the complaints. In the impugned order, State Commission had also taken note of that fact. In these revisions, petitioner seeks enhancement of compensation. In this backdrop, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.