EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. JITENDER NATH TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission on the basis of two appeals filed by the petitioners before this Commission against the Order passed by the District Forum, wherein the complainant Jitendra Nath Tripathi (Petitioner in RP No. 910 of 2005) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the U.P. Power Corporation and others.

(2.) Very briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that Shri Jitendra Nath Tripathi had deposited a sum of Rs.125 on 28.2.2001 for getting the inspection done on the site for purposes of release of electricity connection for his tube -well. It was the case of the complainant that the U.P. Power Corporation had agreed to give the connection from the site of Primary School, Bidanpur, yet when the connection was not being released, the complainant filed a writ before the Honble High Court of Allahabad, who vide its judgment dated 26.4.2002 gave 15 days time to U.P. Power Corporation to give the electricity connection. This was also not complied with by the opposite parties. The connection was released much later, only on 22.8.2002. It is in these circumstances a complaint was filed before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the U.P. Power Corporation for not releasing the connection in time and when it did, the supply was erratic, thus, resulting in loss of crop to the complainant to the extent of Rs. 4,80,000. The matter was contested by the opposite parties. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record passed the following order: The case of the applicant is hereby admitted partly. The opposite party is hereby directed to provide full voltage of electricity within a period of one month from the date of this order to run the tube -well of the applicant properly. If this is not done so by the opposite party then with effect from 22.2.2003, the opposite party will be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 200 per month to the applicant as compensation till the period the full electric supply is given. The applicant will not be granted any amount towards losses suffered by him. The applicant has not asked for any other relief. The information of this decision will be given to the representative of Electricity Department at the time of pronouncement of this decision.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order both the parties filed appeals before the State Commission, who through a lengthy and extensive order passed the following order: