GOVINDRAM G PUROHIT Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of District Forum, Buldana dated nil passed in complaint No.6/91. It is the case of complainant that he did not receive the Electricity bills regularly and his electricity was disconnected from July, 1990 to August, 1991. It is the contention of complainant that no previous notice was given to him prior to the disconnection of the electricity line. The complainant therefore, claimed Rs.10,000/towards compensation. The District Forum by the impugned order, dismissed the complaint holding that it was the duty of complainant to pay regularly the electricity bills even though he did not receive the electricity bills. The District Forum appears to have been satisfied that even though there were lapses on the part of M. S. E. B. complainant did not suffer any loss and therefore, his compensation has been rejected.

(2.) We have heard Shri Thomkre, Advocate for appellant and Shri Tapare, Advocate for respondent. After careful consideration of the facts of this case, we find that the District Forum has reached the finding in para 10 of the impugned order that the complainant suffered some trouble due to disconnection of electric supply and that it may have happened due to complainant's negligence only. It is also stated in the order that complainant should have taken care that autonomous body like Electricity Board should not suffer due to nonpayment of arrears of electricity consumed by the complainant. In our view, the observation made by the District Forum that although the M. S. E. B. was deficient in its service, yet the lapses should be condoned on the ground that it is an autonomous body and it will suffer due to non-payment of arrears of electricity. It is an admitted fact that complainant was without electricity bills from July, 1990 till August,1991 for a period of more than one year. The sufference of the complainant can be very well imagined in as much as despite the payment of electricity bills and without intimation his line was disconnected. It is really an act of deficiency in the service of M. S. E. B. and therefore for the deprivation of complainant without thus being electricity bills for a period of one year, he should have been given some compensation. The District Forum has given contradictory finding although it held that M. S. E. B. was deficient. Under these circumstances, we find that the findings and observations made by the District Forum are contrary to the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of our finding that M. S. E. B. was deficient in its service, the complainant deserves to be granted compensation for the loss of electricity bill facility for full year. In our view, it would meet the ends of justice if the complainant is granted Rs.5000/towards compensation for the loss he suffered in absence of electric supply. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the dismissal of complaint is set-aside. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/towards loss of electricity bills for a period of one year. The amounts shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation.