MAHADEO B GULHANE Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Amravati dated 17.3.94, passed in Complaint No.112/91. A complaint was made against the Maharashtra, State Electricity Board, the present respondent by the complainant alleging deficiencies in its service. Undisputedly, complainant was having an electric connection to his field for irrigating his orange garden. The complainant alleged that there was a theft of electrical wires as a result of which, complainant could not get electric supply to irrigate his orange garden. The complainant alleged that because of the deficiency in the service of M. S. E. B. to restore the electric supply for irrigating orange trees, he sustained a loss of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- and claimed Rs.1 lakh towards compensation from M. S. E. B. The complainant's claim was opposed by the M. S. E. B. stating therein that they had received the complaint about the theft of conductor wires and thereafter the electricity connection was restored. The complainant, therefore, claimed the loss for the intervening period alleging damage to orange fields. By the impugned order, the District Forum found that the electric supply was not restored since 1982 to the complainant. It is also found that the complainant was also not pursue the same. The District Forum was held that the M. S. E. B. has committed deficiency in the service in effecting permanent disconnection and in not furnishing the bill with respect to the energy which was neither consumed nor made available for consumption to the complainant. Therefore, a direction is given in the impugned order to remove the deficiency in service by withdrawing all the bills that were submitted to the complainant. The complainant was granted Rs.1000/- towards compensation and Rs.200/- towards cost.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Paranjapa, Advocate for appellant and Mr. Panchal, Advocate for M. S. E. B. After hearing the learned Advocates from both the sides and after perused of the record, we do not find that there is any force in the argument of Mr. Paranjape that complainant is entitled to claim any enhanced compensation. The only point which is pressed by Mr. Paranjape is that the compensation granted to the complainant by the District Forum is inadequate and, therefore, this appeal has been filed. As discussed above, we do not find that there is any negligence, much less a negligence of such a magnitude which warrants grant of enhanced compensation to the complainant. In any case, we do not find that this is a fit case to enhance the amount of compensation. We therefore, find no substance in this appeal and hence it is hereby dismissed.