Challenge in this Revision Petition by Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for short “the Vidyut Vitran Nigam”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 07.06.2017, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 96 of 2017.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 19.04.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barmer (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.156 of 2016. By the said order, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Vidyut Vitran Nigam on account of its 11 KV High Tension electricity supply line coming in contact with the LT line, supplying electricity to the house of the Respondent, resulting in the damage to a number of articles in the house, including computer, laptop, printer, fan etc., the District Forum had directed Vidyut Vitran Nigam to pay to the Respondent a sum of ₹6,80,000/- towards the loss suffered by him on account of damage to the said articles; ₹20,000/- towards mental agony; and ₹5,000/- towards litigation costs.  The District Forum had also directed that if the said amounts were not paid within one month from the date of its order, the same shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the said order till realization.  As noted above, the State Commission has affirmed the afore-noted finding regarding the High Tension (HT) wire coming in contact with the L.T. wire, supplying electricity to the premises of the Respondent, as a domestic consumer, and has also uphold the direction with regard to payment of the afore-noted compensation.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Vidyut Vitran Nigam has strenuously urged that the finding returned by both the Fora below with regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the Vidyut Vitran Nigam is vitiated, inasmuch as no evidence was adduced by the Respondent in support of his plea that the damage to the said articles was on account of the High Tension wire coming in contact with the wire supplying electricity to the premises of the Respondent.  It is also urged that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the Respondent is also on the high side. 

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, who is on Caveat, has submitted that since the cause of the incident stood proved because of the certificate filed by the Patwari and the Tehsildar, Barmer, who had carried out the spot inspection on 14.03.2016, both the Forums below were justified in returning the afore-noted finding.

Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the facts at hand, emanating from the material on record, I am of the opinion that in so far as the finding relating to the cause of the incident/accident is concerned, in the absence of any enquiry report placed on record by the Vidyut Vitran Nigam as to the cause of incident, the afore-noted concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Fora below cannot be faulted with, more so, when the same has not been challenged as being perverse on any ground whatsoever.  Hence, there is no ground to overturn the same.  It is affirmed accordingly.

Having come to the afore-noted conclusion, the issue surviving for consideration is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Fora below is justified.  Bearing in mind the fact that the Respondent had not adduced any evidence in support of the value of the articles, which were damaged on account of the short circuiting, the compensation awarded by the Fora below, solely on the basis of the claim made in the Complaint, appears to be on the high side. In my opinion, the factum of the incident, resulting in damage to the aforesaid articles, not being in dispute, the interests of justice would be sub-served by directing the Vidyut Vitran Nigam to pay to the Respondent a lump-sum amount of ₹3,00,000/-, as compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of damage to the said articles, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till realization.

Resultantly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.