Per. Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon’ble Member.

1.     This appeal is preferred by the original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 who are  the officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd against the  the judgment and order  30/10/2007 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Dhule in CC.No.277/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellant /opponent liable for deficiency in service. The respondents are the original complainant. For better understanding the appellants are  hereinafter referred as “ opponent” whereas  respondents as the “complainants”.

2.     Brief facts leading  to the present appeal are as under :-

        That, the complainant No. 1 is the legal heir of  Shankar Lotan Patil who has owned agricultural land G.No. 206/1 and 206/2. That, there was a well in the said Gut Nos.  That in order to irrigate the land, the power pump was installed on the said well for which electric connection was obtained from the appellant   and the consumer No. was 9717705662255. The complainant No. 1 had  cultivated  the land of complainant No. 2 on rental basis. Thus  they had contended that they were consumer of the opponent. The main grievance of the complainants is that they were not given benefit of the Krushi Sanjivani Yojna which was declared by Government of Maharashtra  only on the ground that they had deposited the amount of bill of Rs 8553/- on 31/01/2004 which was short of Rs 100/-. The further grievance is that although they had deposited the above said amount of Rs 8553/- the opponent had issued bill with arrears amounting Rs 22,800/- as on 28/02/2006. The complainant had therefore issued legal notice dated 19/02/2006 to the opponents requesting to give them the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna and to cancel bill dated 28/02/2006 amounting to  Rs 22,800/-. However, the said notice was neglected by the opponent and hence he  filed complaint before Dist. Consumer Forum seeking direction to the opponents to extend them the benefit  of the Krushi Sanjivani Yojna and to cancel the bill dated  28/02/2006 amounting Rs 22,800/-. It was also sought direction to  the opponent to allow them to deposit Rs 100/- along with interest for getting the benefit of said yojna. The opponent contended that although the father of the complainant  namely late Shankar Lotan Patil was their consumer. However,  after his death his  legal heirs including the complainant No. 1 had not taken any steps to transfer the said connection in their name and hence the opponent contended that the complainant No. 1 was not their consumer. It is further contended that the complainant No. 2 namely Shri. Pandurang Mali  also not their consumer. It was further contended that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation as the cause of action arose on 31/01/2004 but the complaint was filed after the limitation period of two years i.e. on 08/01/2007. The opponent also averred that the complainants had deposited less amount of Rs 100/- and hence they were not given the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna, as per the government circular dated 03/01/2004. Thus the opponent contended that the complainant had made a false complaint and the same is being baseless be dismissed.

3.     The Dist. Consumer Forum after considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties  allowed the complaint partly  and directed the opponent to extend the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna to the complainant after getting the short  amount of Rs 100/- deposited from them.  It was also directed to pay to the complainant Rs 500/- for mental harassment and further Rs 500/- towards cost of the complaint. It is held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that the complainants  had deposited the amount of electric bill of Rs 8553/- as against the amount Rs 8653/- which  was required to be deposited. However, there was a short of only Rs 100/- and hence it is held that the opponent should not have kept the complainant deprived of the said scheme. It is further held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that since the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna was not given to the complainant they had  unnecessary demanded the exorbitant amount of bill dated 28/02/2006 amounting Rs 22,800/-. Thus in keeping with  these observations it is held by the Dist. Consumer Forum that by not giving  the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna to the complainant the opponent had committed deficiency in service and accordingly  passed the impugned judgment and order.

4.     Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order the present appeal is filed by the opponent which came to be finally heard on 22/01/2014. adv.Smt.Sunita Jadhav holding for Adv.Smt. Chhaya Gaikwad appearing for the appellant was present. Both the complainant  as well as their counsel Shri. A.D.Pawar were also absent.  The complainants  Smt. Gaikwad has already submitted written notes of arguments for the appellant therefore the matter was adjourned for judgment and order. The Ld. Counsel Smt.Gaikwad appearing for the opponent had made almost  the same averments as have been made by the opponents in their written version.

5.     We have perused the papers placed before us i.e. the copies of the complaint, written version filed by the opponent, disputed bill, circular issued by the complainant regarding Krushi Sanjivani Yojna, appeal memo, impugned judgment and order and the written notes of arguments filed by Adv. Smt. Gaikwad for the appellant. The main point which arises for our consideration is whether it is proved that the opponent  has committed deficiency in service by not giving the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna to the complainant From the perusal of the government circular dated 03/01/2004  it is observed that the complainant had declared a scheme of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna for giving relief to the farmers in their outstanding electric bills for the period from April 2003 to Sept. 2003. As per the said scheme  50 % of the outstanding bill during the period from April 2003 to Sept. 2003 was to be paid by the farmers and rest 50 percent was to be waived. As per the said scheme the opponent had given the bill dated 15/01/2004 amounting to  Rs 16,713.89 and the complainants were asked to deposit 50 % of the said amount in 4 installments as given below below. The bills of the installments are given under:  

6.     The complainants instead of depositing different installments,  paid in lumsum Rs 8553/- on 31/01/2004. It is the contention of the opponent that since the complainants paid short amount of Rs 100/- they were not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. It is pertained to note  that this  amount of Rs 8553/- is accepted by the opponent corporation. The question  is therefore when the amount which was required tobe deposited was Rs 8653/-, why the opponents have accepted Rs 8553/- which was short amount by Rs 100/-. It can therefore said that the appellants are equally responsible as they have accepted   short amount of Rs 100/- . It is also tobe noted that the last date for making payment of the 50 % of the amount was 31/03/2004. The complainant had paid the above said amount Rs 8553/- on 31/01/2004 which means there was two months time and the opponent could have very well recovered the amount of Rs 100/- which was coming short for making the complainant entitled for  the said scheme. We therefore find that the Dist. Consumer Forum has rightly held that the opponents are liable for deficiency in service.

7.     The other objection raised by the  opponent that the complainants are not “consumers” and  that the complaint was barred by limitation etc. also not sustainable. The complainant No. 1 is the legal hears of the deceased Shankar Patil and therefore he is entitled for the benefit of the services given by the opponent.  The complainant  No. 2 is also a consumer as he was cultivating  the land of the complainant No. 1 and other legal heirs of deceased Shankar Patil. As regards the limitation period the cause of action did not arose on 31/03/2004 but on 28/02/2006 when  bill of excessive amount  of Rs 22,800/- was given to the complainants . It is only on 28/02/2006 the complainants  came to know that they were not given the benefit of  Krushi Sanjivani Yojna.

8.     In  view of the aforesaid facts and observations it is  evident that the Oriental  Insurance Company Ltd  have committed deficiency in service as they did not give the benefit of Krushi Sanjivani Yojna to the complainant dispite depositing the amount of Rs 8553/- we therefore find no substance in the appeal filed by the opponent and hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum requires to be upheld. In the result we pass the following order.

                                O R D E R

1.     Appeal is dismissed.

2.     No order as to cost.

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