DR. BAIJNATH SHARMA RESIDENT OF 99 Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER, MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY, NISTHA PARISAR, GOVINDPURA BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this revision petition has been made by the complainant/petitioner to the impugned order passed on 29.10.2010 by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to 'State Commission') in appeal No.1242 of 2009, Dr. Baijanth Sharma Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra, Vidyut Vitaran Company , vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order passed by the District Forum, Hoshangabad (MP) on 6.6.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/08/296 was modified. The District Forum vide the said order had held the respondent/OP liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000.00 for mental harassment and Rs. 1,000.00 as litigation cost. However, the State Commission in appeal, allowed compensation of Rs. 15,000.00 instead of Rs. 5,000.00 to the complainant.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the complainant, Dr. Baijanth Sharma, who is a former Vice-Chancellor of a University at Bhopal, filed complaint against the opposite party (OP) saying that he had given 10 acres of land to his daughter and son-in-law who live at Hyderabad but he himself, was cultivating the said land and had planted different kinds of fruit trees after spending about Rs. 4 lakhs on fertilizers, besides labour and making improvements on the said land. He was using an electric connection issued in the name of his son for irrigating the said land. It has been stated that in June 2006 electricity wires were broken and stolen by unknown persons. Since there was no electricity, the plants could not be watered and started drying, leading to loss. The wires were restored in the year 2008, after repeated requests made by the complainant to the OP. On the other hand, OP started sending bills for a connection which was not granted, nor the security was returned to him. Because of the loss he suffered, the complainant developed various health problems like high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problem etc. and he had to spend about Rs. 5 lakhs on treatment for these health problems. The complainant sought compensation from the OP for the loss suffered to the crop as well as for the money spent on his medical treatment.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP, saying that the complainant did not make any complaint to them about breaking and theft of the wires. Regarding the health problem, the OP stated that the complainant was an old man and suffered from various diseases due to his old age and not due to any fault of the OP. Regarding the electric connection, it is stated that the said connection could not be given in his name, as he failed to complete necessary formalities. Due to some mistake in record, the electric bills were issued in the name of the complainant, but the same were cancelled thereafter, following the objections raised by him.