Maharashtra

StateCommission

A/10/1068

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SMT PRAMILA POPAT DATE - Opp.Party(s)

S JIINSIWALE

21 Jun 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
 
First Appeal No. A/10/1068
(Arisen out of Order Dated 17/07/2010 in Case No. 154/07 of District Additional DCF, Pune)
 
1. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD
RASTA PETH PUNE
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
2. JUNIOR ENGINEER SUB DIV NIRGUDSAR, M S E D CO LTD
TAL AMBEGAON
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
3. ASST ENGINEER, MANCHAR SUB DIV, M S E D CO LTD
MANCHAR TAL AMBEGAON
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. SMT PRAMILA POPAT DATE
R/O K 304 BHATI VIHAR KATRAJ PUNE
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
2. PRAVIN POPAT DATE
R/O D 304 BHARTI VIHAR KATRAJ PUNE
PUNE
MAHARASHTRA
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the appellants.
 Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.154/2007 (Smt.Pramila Popat Date & Anr. V/s. Junior Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.  & Ors.) passed by Addl. District Forum, Pune.  The consumer complaint pertains to claiming compensation for loss sustained to the sugarcane crop of the complainants which was burnt due to short-circuit in the transmission line led by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘MSEDCL’).  The complainant claimed compensation of `5 Lakhs.  The District Forum upholding the contention of the complainant partly allowed the complaint and directed the opponent/MSEDCL to pay compensation of `2 Lakhs within period of six weeks and failing which shall pay further interest of 8% p.a.  Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by MSEDCL as well as the original opponent No.1-Junior Engineer and opponent No.2-Assistant Engineer.

          Heard Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, Advocate for the appellants and Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the respondents.

          In the instant case, as per statement made by the complainants themselves and considering the undisputed facts, the sparking (due to which sugarcane crop caught fire and loss sustained by the respondents/complainants) had taken place at a transmission line and not service line of the complainants, whereby electric energy was supplied to them.  Therefore, complainants cannot be held as consumer and as such a consumer dispute itself is not tenable.  Facts of the present case, as such, are covered by earlier decision of this Commission in First Appeal Nos.227/2007 & 228/2007 in the matter of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. V/s. Shri Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi, decided on 10/03/2010 [Quorum : Justice Mr.S.B. Mhase, Judicial Member-Mr.S.R. Khanzode & Member-Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar].   We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                             -: ORDER :-

1.                 Appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 17/07/2010 is set aside and in the result, consumer complaint No.154/2007 stands dismissed. 

2.                 In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.

3.                 Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

 

Pronounced

Dated 21st June 2013.

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.R. Khanzode]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. S.B.Sawarkar]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.