Common Order in First Appeal No.258 of 2013 + First Appeal No.283 of 2013 Per – Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chavan, President These two appeals are directed against an order dated 29/07/2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.35 of 2010 and directing the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSEDCL’ for the sake of brevity) to pay to Mr. Dattatraya Pandurang Pandhare viz. original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Complainant’ for the sake of brevity), a sum of Rs.45,000/- against the claim of Rs.4,55,000/- made by him together with costs quantified at Rs.1,000/-. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding these two appeals and about which there cannot be a doubt, are as under:- Complainant owns certain lands in which, there is a bore-well. He had sought a new electricity connection for installing an electric motor-pump on the bore-well. This application was made somewhere in the year 2006. Electricity connection was not provided because persons by name ‘Govind Phalle’ and ‘Sharad Phalle’ applied to MSEDCL that such electricity connection should not be provided since some civil suits were pending. MSEDCL did not provide electricity connection. Complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum and filed a consumer complaint claiming compensation for the yield of sugarcane, which he would have otherwise got in two agriculture years, together with interest and costs. [3] MSEDCL resisted the complaint by filing its written version inter-alia, contending that since some dispute between the ‘Phalles’ and the Complainant were subjudice and since the ‘Phalles’ had raised objections, MSEDCL did not provide electricity connection. It, therefore, sought dismissal of complaint with compensatory costs. [4] After hearing the rival contentions, the District Forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, both the parties are before us. [5] We have heard learned Adv. Kedar Jaysing Patil on behalf of the Complainant and learned Adv. Sandeep S. Jinsiwale on behalf of MSEDCL. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have also carefully perused the material placed on record. [6] Defence of MSEDCL that it did not provide electricity connection because there were some objections raised by other owners, was rightly rejected by the District Forum. Though the land belonged to ‘Phalles’, ultimately, one of the ‘Phalles’, had sold the piece of land to the Complainant. ‘7-12’ extract mentioned the name of the Complainant as the person cultivating the field. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason for MSEDCL to refuse to provide electricity supply. Hence, we uphold the finding of the District Forum that there was ‘deficiency in service’, since the Complainant had complied with all the requirements for seeking such a supply. [7] Learned counsel for the Complainant, who has preferred First Appeal No.283 of 2013, submitted that had the electricity supply provided in nick of time, Complainant could have earned an income of Rs.4,55,000/-. District Forum rightly concluded that computation of Rs.4,55,000/- is hypothetical, based on guesswork and several ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’. Therefore, we find that the District Forum rightly restricted the amount of compensation to Rs.45,000/-. We, therefore, see no merits in both these appeals. Hence, we pass the following order:- ORDER First Appeal No.258 of 2013 filed by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., as well as First Appeal No.283 of 2013 filed by original Complainant viz. Mr. Dattatraya Pandurang Pandhare stands dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Amount deposited by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., shall be released in favour of original Complainant, together with interest accrued thereon. Pronounced on 23rd April, 2015 | 
