Date 09/01/2013

O  R  A  L    O  R  D  E  R 

Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.

1.       The appellant who are the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 18/09/2006 passed by the Dist. Forum in C.C.No. 96/2004. The present respondent is the original complainant.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that he is a farmer having agricultural land admeasuring 1 H. 76 R. from survey No. 5 at village Neknoor Dist. Beed. That the land consist of one well  having good source of water. That in order to make improvement in the agriculture, he had applied for new electric connection for electric pump  on the said well. Accordingly as per the quotation given by the appellant he had deposited amount of Rs 2070/- vide receipt No 3486381 dated 29/12/2001. That even after depositing  the said amount the electric connection was not given. He had time and again persuaded the appellant to give him connection. However, his request was not considered by the appellants. It was further contended that even if he was not given connection, he was demanded   electric bill   amounting to Rs 6721/- dt. 20/02/2004, showing therein consumer No. 576020017979. That, thereafter another bill dated 15/03/2004 amounting to Rs 4,433/- was issued. It was contended by him that when no connection was given to him, the question of demanding any electric bill did not arise. He contended that he was to grow sugarcane in the area of about 1 acre 60 R. He therefore contended that since no electric connection was given there was expected loss of agricultural income at about Rs 50,000/- per acre per year i.e. the loss for the period of one year in respect of sugar cane in 1.60 h. of land, it was Rs 70,000/-  and  for two years it was Rs 1,40,000/-. He therefore filed complaint before the Dist. Forum seeking direction to the appellants to cancel the electric bill issued to him and also to pay him total compensation of Rs 1,55,000/- along with interest @ 12 % p.a. towards expected loss of agricultural production and also mental and physical harassment. In addition   he had also requested to direct the appellant to provide him electric connection as per his application.

2.       The appellants appeared before the Dist. Forum and resisted the claim. It was contended that the amount  deposited by the respondent/complainant on 29/12/2001 pertains to his residential connection and it had nothing to do with  the connection for electric pump. It was  further contended that the  respondent had deposited Rs 2,070/- on 04/09/2000 vide receipt No. 4297690 and accordingly he was already given connection on 04/04/2001. It was also contended that since there was  a scarcity condition during the year 2002 the water level of the said well  had gone down and there was no  need to operate the electric pump. However, he was using the electricity since the day he was given electric connection and therefore the disputed bill was issued to him. However just to avoid to pay the electric bills he has filed the false complaint. The appellant has also averred that the Court Commissioner as appointed by the Dist. Forum on the request of the present respondent   had prepared the spot inspection report in   collusion with the respondent and therefore the said report was not reliable. It was further contended that on 21/01/2005 the concerned Section Engineer and Junior Engineer had inspected the said land wherein it was found that electric connection was already given. On all  these ground it was requested by the appellants to dismiss the complaint.

3.       The Dist. Forum after going through the record and hearing the parties has partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation Rs 1,00,000/- towards agricultural loss  sustained by the respondent along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from  04/09/2000 till  realisation of the total  amount. In addition, compensation of Rs 7000/- towards mental harassment was directed be paid to the respondent.

4.       Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the original opponents who are representative of Maharashtra State Electricity Board filed  the present appeal. The appeal came tobe finally heard on 14/12/2012. Adv. Shri.S.N.Tandale was present for the appellant. None was present for the respondent inspite of service of the notice. The learned counsel Shri. S.N.Tandale submitted that the Dist. Forum while passing the impugned judgement and order has placed it’s reliance on the Court Commissioner’s report. However, the Court Commissioner had not informed about his alleged visit to the said field. Therefore there was nobody from the appellant at the time of alleged visit of the Court Commissioner to the  said field. There is also no panchanama  drawn by the Court Commissioner. Hence, the said report was not reliable. On the other hand he submitted that the appellant’s representatives had visited the field of the respondent along with neighbouring farmers and has made the spot panchanama which is kept on record. That the photographs of the electric supply to the electric motor of the respondent were also taken and they are on record. The learned counsel contended that the said panchanama and photographs  clearly revealed  that the respondent was supplied the electric connection. He also submitted that the respondent has taken the cable connection  underground from the pole to his electric motor, therefore it was not seen by the Court Commissioner.  He thus contended that the respondent has already given  electric connection on 04/04/2001 and on the basis of consumption of electricity he was given electric bill of Rs 6721/- as on 04/02/2004 and afterwords the said bill was reduced  to the tune of Rs 4423/- on the basis of “Sanjivani Scheme” and the same was sent to the respondent on 15/03/2004. However, just to avoid the payment of said bill the respondent has filed the false complaint before the Dist. Forum. The Dist. Forum, without considering evidence produced  by the appellant has passed  the erroneous judgment and order  under appeal, which needs to be set aside.

5.       We have perused the papers as well as  considered the  oral submission made by the learned counsel Shri. S.N.Tandale for the appellant. We have observed that the Dist.Forum by  relying on the Court Commissioner’s report on 22/02/2005 has concluded that the appellant had not supplied the electric connection till the date of inspection although the respondent had already deposited the amount of quotation with the appellant. From the perusal of the said report of the Court Commissioner, it is however revealed that there are two electric poles as installed in the field of the respondent and that the electric motor was also there  as installed on the said well. It is also tobe noted that extract of CPL ( Consumer Personal Ledger )  is also produced on record. As per the said CPL the details of electric consumption are given from the month of Sept. 2002 and onwards. The photographs which are on record, show  that there is a electric pole nearby the well and also the electric motor from which one pipe is laid  down the well. From all these circumstances and evidence on record we  hold that, the electric connection was already given to the respondent. The appellant had contended that the connection was given on 04/04/2001. The question however is that the CPL of the said electric connection i.e. AG 1797 is recorded from the Sept. 2002 only. There is no other cogent evidence produced by the appellant to show that the electric connection was given on 04/04/2001. We therefore hold that the said connection was given   to the respondent in the month of Sept. 2002 only and on the basis of the said connection the first bill amount of Rs. 2793.60 which is recorded on the CPL for first six month i.e. Sept. 2002 to March 2003. This bill however did not  appear to have been issued  to the respondent and  the next bills which is for Rs 6712/- for the period from 01/04/2003 to 30/09/2003  appears to have been issued which is under dispute.  In fact, the amount of disputed  bill for the said period is shown in the CPL as Rs 9034.16 as against Rs 6712/- as shown in the electric bill dated 10/02/2004.

4.       The question before us for consideration and decision is whether the electric connection was supplied to the respondent.  It is observed that the  respondent was supplied  the electric connection in  the Month of Sept. 2002 although he had deposited the quotation amount of Rs 2070/- as on 04/09/2000. It means there was a delay of about two years for providing electric supply inspite of supplying the payment of quotation amount. We therefore hold that the appellants have committed deficiency in service by making delay of two years in the supply of connection resulting in to financial loss to the respondent.

6.       As a part of compensation to the resultant loss due to delay in supply the connection, the respondent by way of his complaint has claimed amount of Rs 1.40,000/- towards loss of income from sugarcane and the Dist. Forum  by way of it’s impugned judgment and order has awarded compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- along with interest @ 6 %  p.a. from 04/09/2000 onwards till realisation. We do not find any  proper base for the amount of compensation as claimed by the respondent and as awarded by the Dist. Forum. In fact the Dist. Forum referred in its judgment and order the case law in respect of  “Asstt. Engineer Jaipur Electricity Distribution Company and others –Versus- Bodhan Ram” report in 2004 (1) CPR 9 (NC)  in which the Hon’ble National Commission has confirmed the compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day for the period of delay in supply of electric connection by the petitioner to the respondent. We therefore of the view to modify the amount of compensation by adopting the ratio given in the said case law as mentioned above. There is a delay of two years i.e. 730 days for giving connection to the respondent. We are therefore of the opinion to award compensation @ 100/- per day for 730 days which comes to Rs 73000/-. As regards interest as awarded by the Dist. Forum. We are of the view to grant interest from the date of connection i.e. Sept. 2002 instead of from 04/09/2000 because the said amount of compensation is awarded for the loss presuming the same as sustained by the appellant at the end of Sept.2002 and not on the date of depositing the quotation amount. We are further of the view to reduce the amount of compensation towards mental agony etc. from Rs 7000/- to only Rs 3000/- as it is revealed that the connection was already given but was delayed. We are also of the opinion that the revised bill of Rs 4433/- dated 15/03/2004 issued by the appellant giving the benefit of “Sanjivani Scheme” required tobe deducted  from the said amount of compensation. The appellant also require to be directed to issue the bill for further period as per the actual consumption without charging  any interest or delay charges on  the said amount.

7.       In view of the aforesaid facts and observation we are inclined to modify the impugned judgement and order passed by the Dist. Forum  to the extent of clause 2 and 3. Hence, the following order.

O   R    D    E   R

1.       Appeal is partly allowed.

2.       The impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum is    modified and substituted as under:

i.        The appellants are directed to pay jointly and severally to the respondent/complainant a compensation of Rs 68,500/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from Sept. 2002 towards the delayed electric connection within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

ii.       On failure to pay the above said amount within the prescribed        period it shall carry interest @ 7 % p.a. till the realisation of the        entire amount.

iii.      The appellants are directed to issue the bills to the respondent as per the actual consumption without any interest and delay       charges for further period from 01/04/2004 onwards if not already paid by the respondent.

3.       Copies of the judgment and order be sent to both the parties.