Delay of 44 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Aggrieved by the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( in -2- short, he State Commission), Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited has filed this revision petition in order to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission. A complaint before the District Forum was filed seeking compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to disconnection of his electricity connection of a tube-well due to theft of the cables, which was not restored for several years and on that account alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-service provider. The District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complaint by assessing the loss @ Rs.5000/- per acre per year and accordingly directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. In appeal, the State Commission though concurred with the finding of the District Forum in regard to the deficiency in service on the part of the officials of the petitioner-Nigam but reduced the rate of compensation from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 4000/-. Still not satisfied, the petitioner-Nigam has approached this Commission. We have heard Mr. Arvind Nayar, learned counsel representing the petitioner-Nigam and Mr. Gautam Godara, learned counsel for the -3- respondent-complainant and have given thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions. It is not in dispute that the supply of the electricity to the tubewell of the complainant was disrupted since September, 2002 on account of the theft of cable from transformer to the feeder point of tubewell and the same was not restored till 2009 as is apparent from the affidavit of the S.D.O. filed on record. This was despite the fact that the complainant approached the Nigam through its Senior Officer for restoration of the electricity supply. Instead of redressing his grievance, an arrear bill of Rs.22,313/- was raised against the complainant even though he had not consumed the electricity during the relevant period. We have, therefore, no manner of doubt that the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Nigam and its Officers is writ large in this case. The important question, however, is as to whether despite the deficiency what compensation the complainant could have legitimately claimed or awarded for the loss and injury suffered by him. Loss suffered by the complainant is pecuniary in nature and could be quantified in terms of money. However, he placed -4- no material on record to prove what pecuniary loss he has actually suffered due to the said deficiency on the part of the petitioner-Nigam. Mr. Arvind Nayar would assail the order passed by the fora below primarily on the ground that the complainant had failed to establish the extent of loss suffered by him and the orders passed by the fora below are based purely on the guess work. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant states that he is in a position to establish the quantum of loss by leading evidence but in our view, it is date in the day to allow any such opportunity to the complainant at this stage when he failed to do the same at the earliest appropriate stage. In the circumstances, considering the loss which the complainant must have suffered due to non-availability of irrigation water for his crops, he can only be granted a reasonable compensation because he was otherwise free to use other alternative source of irrigation if he had been so advised. In our view, it would adequately meet the ends of justice if a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is paid to the respondent-complainant. -5- A sum of Rs. 25,000/- stands deposited in the State Commission, which shall be disbursed to the respondent-complainant forthwith and the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- shall be remitted to the respondent-complainant within a period of four weeks from today. The revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.