(Delivered on  12/9/2017)

Per Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Hon’ble Member

1. This appeal   challenges the order dated 18/03/2005, passed by the Addl. District Forum, Nagpur partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 88/2004 and thereby directing the OP/appellant herein to pay the complainant compensation of Rs. 68,400/- towards the loss of 228 orange trees, and Rs. 2,000/- & Rs. 500/- more as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. Respondent Smt. Lata Manohar Sanap is referred as complainant and appellant No. 1 Maharashtra StateElectricity Board through its Executive Engineer and appellant No. 2 Maharashtra State Electricity Board through its Assistant Engineer are referred as opposite party  Nos. 1 and 2 ( OP for short)  for the sake of convenience.
3. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant in complaint in  brief are as under.

The complainant  Smt. Lata Manohar Sanap is the owner of Agriculture field bearing No. 45 in Patwari Halka No. 40, Mauza Pilkapar, Tah. Nagpur (Rural), District Nagpur, admeasuring 1 hectare 45 R. The complainant is an agriculturist by occupation. There is well in his   agricultural field. The complainant availed electric connection for  the consumption of  electric energy of 3 HP from the OP. The complainant  was using electricity for running 3 HP water pump which is fixed  on the aforesaid well. It is the contentions of the complainant that there was  orange tree plantation in the agriculture field and the said trees  were 9 to 10 years old.

4. It is further contended by the complainant that the supply of electricity by the OP was not proper since 9/5/2003. Therefore the complainant lodged a complaint repeatedly with the OP on 11/5/2003, 29/6/2003 and 7/10/2003. The electric supply was totally stopped till 15/10/2003. As a result, the water pump could not be operated and the orange trees were not properly watered. About 228 trees were spoilt causing total  loss of Rs. 22800/- that is  at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per tree to the complainant.
5. The complainant filed a consumer complaint and sought for total Rs. 2,37,500/- with 18 percent per annum interest from the OP towards loss caused at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per tree and  compensation for mental and physical harassment and notice charges and cost of proceedings.
6. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing their written version. They denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant. The OPs specifically submitted that the complainant issued a notice dated 13/10/2003, for the first time through her counsel. The OP on the other hand on the receipt of the aforesaid notice promptly  restored the electricity supply on 15/10/2003. The electric supply was suspended due to some natural fault which was promptly attended by the OP and it was not a case of disconnection of electricity supply. The OP therefore sought for dismissal of complaint as the same was not tenable.
7. The Forum partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties. The Forum assessed the loss  on moderation basis at the rate of Rs. 300/- per tree and allowed the compensation at Rs. 68,400/-.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the original OP/Maharashtra State Electricity Board through its Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer has preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the Forum drew an erroneous conclusion that the electric supply was disrupted from May 2003 to October 2003 and  assessed the damage at Rs. 300/- per tree.
9. We heard counsel for both the sides and perused the written notes of arguments filed by both the parties. We also perused copies of complaint written version and documents filed on record by both the parties.
10. The facts in respect of the complainant being an agriculturist and having electric connection and planted orange trees are not disputed. The appellant/original OP however has denied the alleged complaints dated 9/5/2003, 11/5/2003, 29/6/2003, 7/10/2003 as the complainant had not filed the copies of the complaints with the consumer complaints. The appellant/original OP however admitted that they received the legal notice on 13/10/2003 and the electric supply was restored on 15/10/2003. The only inference that can be drawn is that there was no electric supply till 15/10/2003 as undisputedly it was restored on 15/10/2003. The Forum had directed the OP to produce documents in respect of the aforesaid complaints made about discussion of electric supply from 9/5/2003 to the OP. The OP did not complythe aforesaid directions. Therefore the Forum had rightly drawn adverse inference and accepted that there was no electric supply from 9/5/2003 to 15/10/2003, causing loss to the complainant due to lack of irrigation of orange trees.  
11. The complainant  has suffered loss of 110 orange trees as seen from the letter dated 25/4/2005 addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division, MSEB, Nagpur by the Taluka Agriculture Officer, Nagpur.
12. We are of the reasoned view that the complainant is entitled for the damage caused due to spoiling/drying up of 110 orange trees at the rate of Rs. 300 per tree. We are therefore of the opinion that the damage caused being assessed at the aforesaid rate would rightly meet the ends of justice. The said compensation thus comes to Rs. 33,000/-
13. The respondent/original complainant has not brought any cogent evidence on record in respect of 228 trees being spoilt as alleged in the consumer  complaint. Therefore in our opinion it would be just and proper to grant damages  towards loss of 110 orange trees for which she has also received compensation of Rs. 10,000/-in pursuance to the Government Resolution dated 30/11/2002.
14. For the foregoing reason, we are of the reasoned view  that the appeal deserves to be partly allowed and the impugned order deserves to be modified accordingly. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The direction given in Clause Nos. 1 & 3  of the impugned order  are modified and substituted as under.

1. The OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 33,000/- for the loss of 110 orange trees of the complainant with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of impugned order i.e. from 18/3/2005 till realization of the same by complainant.
2. The directions given in clause Nos. 2 and 3 of the impugned order are maintained as regards payment of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 500/- towards compensation & cost.  

3. No order as to cost in appeal.
4. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.