Appellant North Delhi Power Limited was the opposite party before the State Commission.

          Respondent/complainant filed a complaint seeking compensation of Rs.10 Lacs on account of loss of business and damage to the electric gadgets due to voltage fluctuation and erratic supply of electricity by the appellant.  Respondent/complainant is a

-2-

partnership firm and is running 2-star hotel at Mansarovar Garden.  Two electricity connections are installed in the premises.  It applied for additional load of 35 KW CLP in the year 1991 which was duly sanctioned.  The load was further enhanced to 40 KW CLP.  According to the complaint, as there were persistent fluctuations in the supply of electricity due to unauthorized connections taken by the jhuggi dwellers by using hooks on the main supply line.  Due to his fluctuation in voltage there was massive damage to all electrical equipments and appliances like Deep Freezers, Refrigerators, Tubes, Bulbs, Chokes, Motors and condensers, compressors and the cooling plant.

          The State Commission in para 11 recorded a finding that the respondent had not given any details of the loss suffered by it; that the respondent has come out with a general statement that it had suffered immensely as to his income and damage to the electric gadgets.  Para 11 of the order reads as follows:

“However, the complainant has not given any details of the loss suffered by it. It has just come out with a general statement that it had suffered immensely as to his income and

-3-

damage to the electric gadgets.  We do not deem it proper to compensate the complainant to the extent it has asked for.”

          It would be seen that the State Commission did not deem it appropriate to compensate the appellant to the extent that it had asked for.  After recording this finding, the State Commission awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as punitive damages and compensation for loss of business, mental agony and harassment as the consumers in general were facing such problem on daily basis on a wide scale.  Once, the State Commission has held that the complainant had failed to prove his case by leading any evidence as to the loss, if any, due to fluctuation to the electric gadgets, it could not have awarded the punitive damages of Rs.50,000/- against the appellant. 

          Learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent had led evidence to that effect, but the State Commission has not dealt with the same.  Respondent/complainant has not filed any appeal against the order passed by the State Commission.  The consumer fora can award compensation for any deficiency committed

-4-

in service or because of any defect in the goods.  Once a finding is recorded that there is no evidence to prove deficiency of service, the State Commission could not award the deterrent damages.  The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

            The amount deposited by the appellant lying deposited with this Commission be refunded to the appellant.