Tulsihidas Sadashio vs Executive Engineer, M S Electricity Distribution Co

THIS revision petition challenges the impugned order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur passed on 10.2.2009 in Appeal No.652 of 2008 thereby the State Commission summarily rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the District Forum, Yeotmal in complaint No.435 of 2007.

BRIEFLY stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner/complainant who allegedly owns 3.95 hectares of agricultural land applied to respondent No.2/OP No.2 on 16.6.2005 for an electric connection on the well in his field with a view to increase his agricultural produce by irrigation/cultivation of the said land. As per the allegation, in spite of pursuing the matter vigorously with the respondents, the request of the petitioner was not complied by them which, according to the petitioner, resulted in loss of agricultural produce due to non -supply of the connection since 2005 and as such the complainant/petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties and praying for compensation both for the negligence on the part of the OPs in not providing the electric connection to the said field and for loss of agricultural produce. On notice, the OPs/respondents appeared before the District Forum and filed their written statement denying any deficiency in service on their part and expressing their willingness to provide electric connection subject to fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner and observance of the laid down procedure, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the District Forum partly accepted the complaint vide its order dated 28.4.2008 in terms of the following directions: - "Non -applicant give demand note to the applicant after received the copy of order, within 30 days. Applicant have to deposit money of demand note within 15 days and thereafter within 15 days to supply electric connection in the field of the applicant and start the electric supply. Since long proper action has not taken by the non -applicants and non -supply of electric connection to the applicant for this loss and for mental and physical agony Rs.10,000/ - Ten thousand and Rs.1000/ - one thousand as a costs of court proceeding shall be given to the applicant by the NA. Implement on the order within 30 days by the NA from the date of order receipt."

BOTH the parties carried the matter before the State Commission by filing separate appeals. The petitioner/complainant not being satisfied with the partial relief granted by the District Forum filed his appeal bearing No.652 of 2008 for enhancement of compensation to Rs.7,00,100/ - and the OPs/respondents filed their appeal bearing No.700 of 2008 for setting aside the judgement and award passed by the District Forum. It is seen from the impugned order that even as the appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties was pending before the State Commission, the State Commission proceeded to hear the appeal of the petitioner/complainant for enhancement of compensation and finding no merit in that appeal summarily rejected it. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed. We have heard the petitioner who has himself argued his case and learned Shri G.S. Baisani, Advocate appearing for the respondents. It may be noted that we had kept this appeal pending since the cross appeal filed by the respondents/opposite parties was still pending adjudication before the State Commission. We had also requested the State Commission vide our order dated 30.11.2010 to make all endeavour to dispose of the appeal filed by the respondent Corporation expeditiously. During the course of hearing, it is brought to our notice by the parties that the cross appeal filed by the respondents has been dismissed by the State Commission vide its order dated 15.12.2011 as being barred by limitation. In view of the dismissal of both the appeals by the State Commission, the order of the District Forum giving partial relief to the petitioner stands upheld by the State Commission. The main contention of the petitioner in person is that the Fora below have gravely erred in ignoring the fact that he had to suffer heavy financial loss on account of loss of agricultural produce for want of irrigation of the field because of the delay in the electric connection to the tubewell. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that there is no case for granting any compensation for loss of income since no proof of income had been provided by the petitioner before the Fora below and it was simply a presumptive loss which could not have been granted by the District Forum and the State Commission. He, therefore, submitted that whatever compensation has been granted by the District Forum was more than enough considering the facts and circumstances of this case and as such the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

WE have considered rival contentions. It is not under dispute that the respondents have already agreed to supply the electricity to the petitioner and in any case the District Forum has given a direction to this effect by asking the respondents to give demand note to the petitioner within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order of the District Forum and also asking the petitioner to deposit the money of the demand note within 15 days thereafter and asking the respondents to supply electric connection in the field of the petitioner within 15 days. In such a situation, we do not find any justification for enhancement in the compensation over and above what has already been granted by the District Forum for mental and physical agony and confirmed by the State Commission. The State Commission while summarily rejecting the request of the petitioner for enhancement in the compensation has observed thus: - "According to the complainant, had he been given the electric connection in his field three years back he would have earned this much amount. This is the presumptive amount towards loss of agricultural produce. In fact, he should have filed Civil Suit for the said loss of so called agricultural produce. Moreover, this appeal is preferred for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Forum below. In fact, when issuance of demand note to the appellant has not been made by the MSEDCL, there was no question of supply of electricity. That part will be decided while deciding the appeal bearing No.456/2008 preferred by MSEDCL."

WE agree with the view taken by the State Commission and do not find any ground to interfere with it under the limited powers vested on this Commission while exercising its revision jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.

SINCE the State Commission has already dismissed the cross appeal filed by the respondents on the ground of limitation and there is no revision petition filed by the respondents against that order, the order of the District Forum is now binding on the respondents.

IN the absence of adequate justification for grant of presumptive amount towards loss of agricultural produce, the Foras below were justified in giving partial relief in regard to the request of the petitioner for grant of compensation.

IN the circumstances, we do not find any substance in this revision petition and dismiss the same with the parties bearing their own costs.