Date  : 11.10.2012.

Per Mr.B.A.Shaikh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

1.       This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2007 passed in C.C.No.221/07 by District Forum, Osmanabad.

2.       Respondent herein filed complaint before the District Forum with the allegations in brief that he obtained electric connection from original opponent i.e. appellant herein. However, on 27.4.2007 the transformer from where electricity supply given to him was burnt. Opponent installed new transformer (DP) on 24.7.2007 and at that time only electric supply was restored to him. He could not do his work of carpenter for the period from 27.4.2007 to 24.7.2007.  Hence he sustained loss of Rs.60,000/-.  He therefore claimed from opponent the said amount with compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards harassment and Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint.

3.       Original opponent i.e. appellant herein filed written version and admitted that transformer was burnt on 27.4.2007.  But submitted that new transformer was installed without any delay.  It has also contended that due to burning of the transformer no loss was sustained by complainant and that electric supply of complainant was temporarily disconnected as he was found committing theft of electricity.  They therefore submitted that complaint may be dismissed.

4.       District Forum below after considering evidence brought before it and hearing both sides observed that the transformer was burnt on 27.4.2007 and new transformer was installed on 26.7.2007 as seen from the letter written by original opponent to the concerned Gram Panchayat.  Therefore it held that there was deficiency in service provided by opponent to the complainant and it assessed monthly compensation of Rs.2000/- and granted total compensation of Rs.6000/- for three months.

5.       We have heard Adv.V.B.Deshmukh appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent for final hearing. We also perused the papers placed before us.  It is submitted by advocate of appellant that transformer was immediately reinstalled and there was no evidence before the District Forum showing loss sustained by complainant and that copy of panchanama prepared by officials of appellant shows that as complainant was committing theft of electricity and that his electric supply was already disconnected.  He thus submitted that impugned judgment is not legal and proper and it may be set aside.

6.       District Forum below in the impugned judgment observed that no document was placed before it by the original opponent to show that complainant committed theft of electricity.  Therefore  those documents which are produced for the first time before this Court about theft of electricity cannot be considered in appellate stage. Appellant did not come with specific case before the District Forum actually as to on what date the transformer was reinstalled. On the contrary, official of appellant gave letter to the Gram Panchayat, Bavi where complainant was residing, stating that transformer was burnt on 27.4.2007 and it was reinstalled, on 24.7.2007 and therefore  electric charges need not to be recovered for that period from all consumers residing at village Bavi.  District Forum below has rightly relied on that letter for holding that transformer which was burnt on 27.4.2007 was reinstalled on 24.7.2007. No explanation is given by the appellant why the delay of 2 months and 27 days was occurred for reinstallation of burnt transformer.  It was within the control of appellant to reinstall the transformer without any such delay.  Therefore definitely there was deficiency in service provided by the appellant to the original complainant.  The District Forum below has rightly assessed the loss of Rs.2000/- per month sustained by the complainant considering his nature of work as carpenter and the period during which there was no electricity supply provided by the appellant for doing that work. We thus find that impugned judgment and order is legal, correct and proper. Hence appeal deserves to be dismissed.  

                                                O   R    D    E    R

1.     Appeal is dismissed. 

2.     No order as to cost.

3.     Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.