ANUPAM DASGUPTA This revision petition challenges the order dated 05.10.2010 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ‘the State Commission’). By this order, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the complainant and directed the respondent to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for not supplying electricity to the complainant’s 3-phase agricultural connection during February-July, 2008, as a result of which she suffered loss on account of inability to plant and raise crops on her agricultural field. In addition, the State Commission also awarded cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. The complainant has come up with this revision petition against the above-mentioned order of the State Commission with the sole prayer for enhancement of the compensation which, according to her, should have been Rs. 40,000/- as claimed in the complaint. 3. The Special Attorney of the complainant (her husband) had sent a letter, received in this Commission on 18.08.2011, stating that if he was unable to appear on the next date of hearing (21.09.2011), the petition may be decided in his absence, based on the documents already submitted by him. Since there was no presence on behalf of the petitioner at the time when the matter was called out, the order was reserved, keeping in view the aforesaid written submissions of the Special Attorney of the petitioner. However, the Special Attorney appeared after quite some time and his presence was recorded. The revision petition is being disposed of on the basis of the documents made available on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The complainant’s complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chhindwara (in short, ‘the District Forum’) was dismissed by the latter. However, in appeal, the State Commission considered all the documents and evidence produced by the parties and passed the impugned order. Perusal of the order would show that the State Commission has dealt with the complainant’s case with full sympathy. It is noteworthy that the complainant/petitioner was unable to furnish any document in support of her claim that she was put to a loss of Rs. 40,000/- on account of non-supply of electricity to her agricultural pump connection. Even then, the State Commission awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for the crop loss and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. 5. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission under the provisions of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. |
