Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

        Respondent/complainant had an electricity connection for his tube-well.  He had installed an electric motor of 7.5 BHP for running the tube-well.  He had been paying the bills regularly.  In May 1993, he applied for extension of load from 7.5 BHP to 20 BHP and deposited Rs.12,500/- on 3.2.1994.  On 30.5.1994, he received a letter from SDO Pehowa asking him to purchase 6 items for installation of transformer and connection.  Respondent purchased the same for Rs.2,600/-.  The load was not extended immediately.  Respondent alleged that the petitioner had released the two extensions of load to the persons who had applied after him and he was threatened by the petitioner to recover the bill of 20 BHP motor since 3.2.1994.  Being aggrieved, the respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

        On being noticed, the petitioners entered appearance and took the defence that the respondent had applied for extension of load and deposited the sum of Rs.12,500/- on 3.2.1994.  From the date of deposit the load of 20 BHP was regularized and the respondent was using the same. 

District Forum dismissed the complaint and directed the petitioner to provide the main switch on the transformer if the respondent applies for the same.

Respondent, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.  It was held that the respondent had deposited Rs.12,500/- on 19.6.1995 for installation of separate transformer and the same was installed on 23.6.1995.  The load was regularized thereafter.  Since the transformer was installed on 23.6.1995 and the load was regularized after that, the petitioner could charge for the extra load with effect from 23.6.1995 only and not from 3.2.1994.  State Commission directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation, as the petitioner had failed to extend the load in time because of which the respondent suffered damages to his crops.

Notice sent to the respondent has been received back with postal remarks “refused”.  Respondent would be deemed to have been served.  Respondent is not present.  Ordered to be proceeded ex parte.

Order of the State Commission is in two parts.  First part deals with the liability of providing extra load and the second part deals with the compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the ground of damages to the crops as the extra load was not given to the respondent in time.

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the petitioner could charge for the extended load with effect from 23.6.1995, i.e., the date on which the transformer was installed and the load regularized and not from 3.2.1994.  The finding of the State Commission in respect of the first part is upheld.

As far as the second part which pertains to the award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the loss of crops is concerned, we find that there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent had suffered any loss due to non-installation of the transformer in time.  The State Commission has arrived at compensation of Rs.50,000/- without there being any evidence on record.  Since the finding recorded by the State Commission on the second part regarding award of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is not based on any evidence, the same is set aside.

Revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.  No order as to costs.