MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. MALATI MADHUKARRAO PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant have filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

(2.) VERY briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainants were owners of certain 'dry-land' for farming purpose, and with a view to irrigate it, had applied for electricity connection from the petitioner, for 'lifting' the water from Godawari river. An application to this effect was made on 4. 2. 1992 and this application was allowed vide order of the petitioner dated 20. 7. 1992. The requisite amount was also deposited by the complainant on 26. 8. 1992 yet the electricity supply was not made to the complainant. Since the connection was not given, resulting in depriving the complainants the facility of irrigation which resulted in loss of crops for that season, a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who allowed the complaint and directed to provide immediate electric connection as also pay compensation of Rs. 5,000 and cost of Rs. 500. Not satisfied with this relief an appeal was filed by the complainant before the State Commission, who increased the compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000. Aggrieved by this order this petition has been filed before us by the petitioner.

(3.) BASIC facts are not in dispute on the point of deficiency on the part of the petitioner. It would be deemed to be admitted position, for the simple reason that while holding the petitioner 'deficient', certain reliefs were awarded against them by the District Forum but the petitioners had not filed any appeal against that order, hence by inference clearly accepting the deficiency on their part in not providing the electric connection resulting in loss of crop for that season. Prima facie, it will appear that the petitioner is aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission, i. e. , by way of increasing the compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 50,000. It is not in dispute, that as per material on record, the complainants owned 7. 76 hac. of land in village Shewedi. This land was unirrigated and it is the complainant who had applied for electricity connection to lift the water which could have irrigated 7. 76 hac. of land. For a failure of a crop during a season spread over an are of 7. 76 hac. or almost around 20 acres of land, a compensation of Rs. 50,000 by any standard would be much less than the crop loss sustained by the complainant on account of deficiency on the part of the petitioner by not providing electric connection to the complainant, despite all the formalities having been completed by him. In our view, the compensation granted is much less than what it should have been given. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.