O R D E R (ORAL)

       This Revision Petition, by Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “the Vidhyut Nigam”), through its Executive and Assistant Engineer, is directed against the order dated 9.3.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench at Jodhpur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.253/2009.  By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 3.7.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barmer (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.04/2009.  By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Vidhyut Nigam in not properly maintaining its 11 KV high tension (HT) line, which according to him had snapped and fallen on the electricity supply line causing extensive damage to the electric equipment lying in his premises, on the ground that the Complainant had failed to prove his case.

       Upon notice, the Complainant is represented.  Accordingly, I have heard learned Counsel for the Vidhyut Nigam and learned Counsel for the Complainant.

       As noted above, the short question for consideration before the lower Fora was whether the Complainant had been able to prove his case that he had suffered loss on account of short circuiting of the supply line to his premises on account of snapping of a HT wire, supposed to be maintained by the Vidhyut Nigam and if so, what amount of compensation the Complainant was entitled to.

       On re-appraisal of the material brought on record by both the parties in support of their rival claims, the State Commission has rejected the stand of the Vidhyut Nigam that no HT wire was passing over the premises of the Complainant and hence there was no occasion for any damage to the equipment of the Complainant on account of its snapping, observing thus :

“An important fact of this complaint is that contention of the respondents is that no electricity line is laying over the electricity line of the complainant as such there is no possibility of causing any loss.  Appellant has filed photographs of the place where his boards and transformers are fixed and a perusal thereof reveals that another line is passing over the electricity line of the complainant and thus contention of the respondents that no line is passing over the electricity line of the complainant is not tenable.  Photographs of the electricity board fixed at the agriculture field of the appellant are also available on record and they are completely burnt which makes it clear that electricity wire of the complainant are certainly burnt due to high voltage.  Even after perusing the photographs by ignoring the same and believing upon the contention of the respondents that no other line is passing over the electricity of the appellant, judgment so delivered by the learned District forum by rejecting the complaint is liable to be set aside. Sarpanch sedwa has also confirmed the contention of the appellant by issuing a certificate.”      (Emphasis supplied)

       As regards, the award of the compensation, the State Commission has observed that since the Complainant had failed to place on record any evidence showing the value of the equipment, which was claimed to have been burnt in fire, it has awarded a sum of ₹62,500/- as one-time compensation as against the compensation of ₹2,00,000/- claimed by the Complainant.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.

       Having perused the documents on record, particularly the Written Version filed on behalf of the Vidhyut Nigam, in particular its reply to para-2 of the Complaint, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the damage to the equipment was on account of snapping of the 11 KV HT wire, which fact has not been specifically rebutted in the Written Version, I feel that the afore-extracted finding recorded by the State Commission does not suffer from any perversity, which is not even the case pleaded in the Revision Petition.

       Hence, I uphold the finding by the State Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Vidhyut Nigam in the maintenance of the HT line.  As regards the quantum of the compensation awarded by the State Commission, here also, I am of the opinion that regard being had to the amount involved, it does not warrant any interference.  Nevertheless, I feel that in the light of the observation by the State Commission that no specific evidence regarding the cost of the damaged equipment had been furnished, the award of interest over and above the lump sum compensation is not justified, more so when almost 50% of the amount, as awarded had already been deposited by the Petitioner in the District Forum and a sum of ₹20,000/- has already been released to the Complainant.

       Resultantly, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.  To put it succinctly, while maintaining the award of compensation, the direction with regard to payment of interest is deleted.  It will be open to the Complainant to withdraw the balance amount lying deposited in the District Forum along with accrued interest, if any, forthwith.  The deficiency in the amount payable to the Complainant in terms of this order shall be made good by the Vidhyut Nigam within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by means of a Demand Draft in favour of the Complainant, which shall be sent directly to him at his address mentioned in the Memo of Parties name.

       The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.