RAMBHAU Vs. THE SUPRINTENDING ENGINEER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.07.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 4/2014, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Rambhau who is an agriculturist and resident of village Bharaj Khurd, District Jafna in Maharashtra, had obtained an electric connection from the Opposite Party (OP), the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited under the agriculture development scheme. The complainant had agricultural land in gut No. 209 to the extent of 68 R for seasonal crop and also in gut No. 331. He used to provide water to betel leaves plant with the help of electric pump installed in his field, gut No. 209. It is stated that an electric transformer which was installed by the OP in gut No. 209 was destroyed in fire on 08.05.2012. The complainant contacted the authorities of the OP, requesting them to set right the electric connection. However, despite taking up the matter with District Collector Jalna and contacting the OPs, the electric connection was not restored till 03.07.2014. The case of the OP Company is that as per their policy, they could restore the electric connection by installing a new transformer only, if 80% of their dues from the beneficiaries of such electric connection had been recovered by them. In the present case, the delay occurred because there was default in the payment of dues by the persons using the electric connection. The complainant contacted the local Tehsildar and the Taluk Agricultural Officer, saying that he had been put to a huge loss because of damage to crop, due to inaction of the OPs in reinstalling the transformer. The Taluk Agriculture Officer visited the fields of the complainant on 17.06.2013 and assessed the loss as Rs.24,27,866/-. The complainant claimed compensation from the OPs for the amount assessed, but since there was no response from them, he filed the complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay him a sum of Rs.24,27,866.52ps. alongwith interest @18% p.a. with effect from 08.05.2012 till realisation.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the OP Company by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the date of failure of the transformer was 26.06.2012 and not 08.05.2012. The OPs stated that after the failure of the transformer on 26.06.2012, they had informed all the consumers connected with the said transformer that unless and until, 80% of the dues from them are recovered by the OPs, the said transformer could not be repaired or replaced. This information was given to them based on a circular dated 04.11.2011, issued by the OP Company and a letter dated 08.11.2011, issued by the Director (Operations), MSEDCL, Mumbai. Regarding the inspection made by the Tehsildar or the Agriculture Officer etc., the OPs stated that the said inspection was not made in their presence. Further, the electric connection provided in the area was for Gut No. 209 and had no relationship with the crops grown in gut no. 331. The complainant was, therefore, not entitled for any compensation. It was further averred that in an earlier legal notice sent by the complainant, he had mentioned the loss as Rs.7 lakh only, whereas in the latter notice, he demanded a higher compensation.