Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

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

2.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant is a farmer of sugar cane in every year. For irrigation facilities electric power supply from the Transformer had been installed by the opposite party.

3.      It is alleged inter alia that on 26.9.2003, the Transformer was burnt and power supply was totally stopped.  Due to non-supply of power, sufficient water could not be supplied to  the sugar cane crops and as a result of which the complainant sustained a huge loss. In spite of request of the complainant the opposite party did not install the Transformer. However, the Transformer was restored in the month of December, 2003. During such period, the complainant alleged to have sustained financial loss and mental agony and thus due to deficiency of service on the party of opposite party damage of sugar cane crops occurred, the complainant has therefore filed this complaint petition.

4.      The opposite party took the plea that  the transformer which was installed became defective and it was inoperative during the period from 26.9.2003 to 29.11.2003. He submitted that the people did not get the power from the transformer. It is also stated that during the said period, there was heavy rain and there was no necessity of power supply. However, they have already given the power supply after two months by installing a new transformer and as such they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5.      After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

    “ The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/- ( Rupees one lakh forty thousand) only for loss of sugar-cane, and mango, Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards the cost of the case to the complainant. Further it is directed to remove the three phase electric line which supported by the branches of the mango trees.  The wire should be drawn through a separate pole and not by the branches of the mango trees. The order shall be carried out by opposite parties with in two month from the date of order failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 18% (eighteen percent) per annum on the awarded amount till the date of actual payment.

    So far as removal of three  phase electric line ( which drawn in his land) by diverting in other route is concerned, cannot claim for diversion of the erected three phase electric line under the provision of the C.P.Act, 1986 and so the Consumer Forum ha got no jurisdiction to decide such matter. Therefore, the complainant may seek his grievance before a competent court to get proper redress.

    Accordingly case disposed of.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not applying judicial mind to the facts of the case. He further submitted that the learned District Forum has not considered written version filed by the opposite parties with proper perspectives. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submissions of the parties and perused the  DFR.

8.      It is admitted fact that the transformer was installed to give power to the L.I.point of the complainant, who is a sugar cane farmer. It is admitted fact that the transformer was burnt 26.9.2003 within the area of the complainant. However, it was reconnected on 29.11.2003. Therefore, it is admitted fact that there is no transformer about two months and admitted fact is that complainant is a sugar cane farmer and as such, he has suffered financial loss due to non-supply of electricity to the L.I.Point.

9.      In view of the above, we confirm the impugned order. However, the loss computed by the learned District Forum is based on no evidence. So considering the plight of the complainant, we hereby modify the impugned order by directing for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) by opposite party to the complainant within 45 days from today failing which interest at the rate of 12% per annum will be payable from the date of impugned order till the date of payment.

           The appeal is 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.