Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.      Captioned appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant is a consumer under the opposite party. He has got L.I.Point by taking power supply from the opposite party. It is alleged inter alia that on 29.03.2007, the opposite party 1  to 6 came to the L.I.Point and removed the copper wire attached to the L.I.Point  by  virtue of which the irrigation facility from the L.I.Point to the field of the complainant was disrupted. As such, huge loss caused to the crops raised by the complainant  and the complainant suffered financial loss. After that the complainant requested opposite party nos. 7, 8 and 9 for reconnection of power  to the L.I.Point. However due to damage of crops and disconnection of power supply from the L.I. Point without any authority, the complainant has filed the complaint for the deficiency on the part of opposite party.

4.      The opposite party filed written version stating that they have never disconnected the power  supply and all the allegations are false. After, after hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

    “ The opposite party no.7, 8 and 9 are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand) only towards damage and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only towards litigation cost with within 30 (thirty) day from the date of this order or else the complainant is entitle to 18% (eighteen percent) interest per annum till the date of payment.

     Further, the opposite parties are directed to reconnect wire to the L.I. Point of the Complainant to make it workable within this period without fail.

     Case is disposed of.”

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has passed the order by not considering the written version with proper perpectives. He has submitted the material to show that the opposite parties disconnected the power  supply from the L.I.Point of the complainant. He further submitted that the evidence adduced by the complainant are not believable. Rather, the evidence adduced by the opposite party is quite credible. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

6.      Considered  the submission of both the parties and perused the DFR with the impugned order.

7.      The only question to be decided whether there is disconnection to the L.I. Point made by the opposite parties because the complainant alleged  about disconnection whereas the opposite parties denied about disconnection.

8.      It is always true that the complainant has to prove the case and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has stated in his complaint that on 29.03.2007, the opposite party nos. 1 to 6 came to the L.I.Point of the complainant and disconnected the power supply. This statement of the complainant has been well corroborated  by four witnesses namely, Makhanu Barge, Ghanashyam Barge, Gangadhar Pradhan and Bhujaraj Bhue who have filed evidence of affidavit to prove the fact of disconnection by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have not adduced any rebuttal evidence.

9.      From the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has proved by producing cogent and clear evidence that the opposite parties came to the L.I.Point of the complainant and disconnected of the power  supply.

10.    The next question arises about damages of crops. The statements of the witnesses for complainant is very clear to prove that the complainant has raised crops although the evidence is not strong  enough, however there is reason to  believe that the complainant has installed L.I.Point to raise crops in his field and when the power supply was  disconnected, it is obvious that damages were caused. The total estimate due to damage of crops has not been made by the complainant. Therefore, computation of loss assessed by the learned District Forum at Rs. 1,75,000/- is without any basis. However, taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we arrive at the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from the opposite parties. Therefore, we confirm the impugned order but modify the impugned order by directing the opposite parties  to pay Rs.50,000/- within 45 days to the complainant. So far payment of the cost of litigation, we have no comments.

11.    The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.