BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. RAJESHWAR THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were the 'opposite-party' before the District Forum where the respondents had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners Bihar State Electric Board and others.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the second respondent, who is wife of the first respondent, owns a building which was let out to the first respondent-complainant (who is her husband as well) where a "susruta Surgical Clinic" was started by the first respondent-complainant. As per the report and is not disputed, the complainants had two commercial connections in the said clinic. In the complaint, allegations were made that the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 deliberately and maliciously were supplying electricity with voltage fluctuation resulting in damage to the CCTV belonging to the complainants. This happened because the complainants did not oblige the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by way of illegal gratification. This voltage fluctuation resulted in damage to the CCTVs of the Endoscopic unit for which the respondent-complainant had to buy another set as this old equipment was completely burnt and had to spend Rs. 4,00,000 for the replacement. Thus alleging deficiency on the part of the petitioners, the respondent-complainant filed a complaint with following prayers:

(3.) IT is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum where the matter was contested. The District Forum, after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, directed the respondent-opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 namely Shri T. N. Sinha, Electric Executive Engineer and Shri B. K. Sinha, Assistant Electric Engineer to pay Rs. 75,000 each to the complainants along with cost of Rs. 2,000. The petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also contested by the respondent-complainants and the State Commission after hearing the parties, modified the order to the extent, that all the opposite parties jointly and separately were held liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000 to the complainants along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Hence this revision petition.