RAJANI KANTA MISHRA Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER ELECTRICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of C. D. Case No.117/1996 disposed of by the District Forum, Ganjam, Berhampur. The complainant in the said case is the appellant before us. His grievance is that the Orissa State Electricity Board represented by its officers, opposite parties 1 and 2 is deficient in providing service which the Board was bound to render under an agreement with the complainant. The complainant has stated in his complaint petition that an agreement was entered into by him with the S. D. O. , Electrical, Khallikote, opposite party No.1 on 17.12.1993 for supply of electrical energy to his Lift Irrigation Point at Village Gokulapali and the pump started operating from May, 1994. His further assertion is that he had been paying the tariff regularly to the Electricity Board. The purpose of irrigation was to raise an orchard covering three acres of land where he had grown different varieties of plants and trees at an expense of Rs.3,30,000/-. Unfortunately the transformer from where the power was being supplied to the Lift Irrigation Project was destroyed by a lightning stroke on 12.5.1995. He approached the Electricity Board on several occasions and also issued a registered notice to the opposite parties on 23.1.1996 to repair/replace the transformer and restore power supply to his L. I. Point, but no action was taken by the opposite parties as a consequence of which he suffered a loss to the extent of Rs.2,69,325/- which he claims to be awarded in his favour as compensation.

(2.) The opposite parties filed their version jointly and resisted the claim. Their case is that the breakage of the transformer was due to lightning stroke and the damage was to such an extent that it was beyond the scope of repair. The only alternative available for restoration of power was to replace the transformer by a new one and for doing the same there was an official delay by following the procedures provided for the same. Admittedly the replacement of the transformer and restoration of power has been made on 25.3.1996. In this back ground their contention is that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Board, for the delay in restoration of the power.

(3.) The complainant filed three affidavits in support of his claim that he sustained loss to the extent of about Rs.2,50,000/-. He also relied upon some decisions decided by some State Commissions that non-supply of electricity due to defect in the transformer amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite parties relied on several provisions of the Orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulation, 1981 and some provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and contended that failure to supply electricity due to force majeure which is beyond their control would not amount to deficiency in service and therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation.