PER SHRI P.N.KASHALKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the original opponent against the judgment and award passed by District Forum, Chandrapur in CC 103/08 decided on 23/01/2009. By the said judgment, while allowing the complaint partly, the forum directed the opponent to complete the work of errection of poles within 3 months and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.1410/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 8/11/2000 and also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- for physical and mental harassment to Gram Panchayat Bhutara and Rs.1000/- towards cost. Aggrieved by this, the Original Opponent MSEDCLCompany has filed this appeal.
We heard submissions of Adv.Quazi. Respondent No.1 & 2 are duly served but they are absent. The Respondent, who had filed consumer complaint against Company and Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur alleging that they required 29 poles for increased electrification in the various layouts falling in the gram-panchayat Bhutara, Tah.Korapana, District Chandrapur. So, they passed resolution which was approved by the Zilla Parishad and then MSEDCL Company was requested to errect 21 additional electricity poles and to lay down lines. For that, the gram panchayat deposited Rs.1410/- by demand note on 8/11/2000. Thereafter it was alleged that opponent No.1 had not taken any action to errect the poles. After some days, the opponent erected 31 poles, but had not laid lines. The complainant, all the way was asking company to erect the poles and to start street lights. As the company did not comply, they filed consumer complaint claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.
Opponent No.1 filed written version and pleaded that prior to 2002, street lights used to be got installed under DPDC scheme of the Collector but after 2002, Government started giving funds on that count w.e.f. 16/6/2003. Because funds of DPDC were not available for Chandrapur District, they could not errect the poles. They had asked Gram Panchayat to pay all the expenses required for erection of poles. They had given estimate of Rs.171,898/- to the complainant gram panchayat, but barring the amount of Rs.1410/- they had not paid any amount and, therefore, work could not be completed. They, therefore, pleaded that they are not guilty of deficiency in service and, therefore the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
District Forum Chandrapur, relying on the affidavit and documents held that company was guilty of deficiency in service and it was pleased to allow the complaint and direct errection of 29 poles within 3 months and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by this award, the MSEDCL company filed this appeal only in respect of amount of compensation and cost.
According to counsel for the appellant, they have already complied the award and there is letter issued by the Complainant Gram Panchayat dated 25/03/09 that entire work of electrification at Ghumne Layout has been carried out after installing 29 electricity poles in 2008-09. Thus, this grievance of the complainant is already redressed. It is the grievance of the appellant that compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- should not have been awarded. Adv.Quazi argued that, the complainant being Gram Panchayat, how can there be physical and mental harassment to it. There is substance in the argument of Adv.Quazi. A private person can have physical and mental harassment but the legal entity can not have physical and mental harassment and as such, the compensation of Rs.5000/-granted on this count is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Likewise, award of cost of Rs.1000/- is also not warranted as the complainant had not deposited the demanded amount of Rs. Rs.171,898/- for errection of poles and as the DPDC fund was not awailable, the Appellant could not errect the poles. At last, the work was got done with the help of MP and MLA funds and, therefore, awarding of cost is not justifiable in the circumstances obtainable in this case.
Hence the order…
ORDER
1) Appeal is partly allowed.
