Complainant/petitioner purchased a pumping set and got electric connection from the respondent to run the same to irrigate his fields.  Pumping set was purchased by the complainant in July, 1991.  Respondent installed a transformer for giving connection to the

-2-

petitioner.  The grievance of the petitioner is that on 10.12.1991, the transformer stopped working.  Petitioner approached the respondent to repair the transformer many times but in vain.  Inspite of his clearing all the bills due, the transformer was not repaired.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to pay Rs.90,000/- for the loss of crops, repair of transformer and supply of electricity and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission has reversed the order passed by the District Forum and held that the petitioner had failed to prove the actual loss suffered by due to non-supply of electricity due to malfunctioning of the transformer.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  The onus to prove the actual loss caused to the petitioner was on him.  Petitioner did not lead any evidence on record to prove the loss except the report of the Tehsildar who simply stated

-3-

the approximate loss for wheat crop is Rs.4800/- per acre.  Petitioner failed to prove that infact he had sown the wheat crop or any other crop.  In the absence of any such evidence, it is not possible for us to assess the loss actually suffered by the petitioner.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission.  Dismissed.