Back
2009(4) CPR 287 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
Ashok Bhan, President and B.K. Taimni, Member
Kana Jiva Dhami and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Gujarat Electricity Boards —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2718 to 2721 of 2005
Decided on 17.7.2009
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.M. Vithlani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.K. Mehta, Mr. Gaurav Srivastava, and Mr. Antaryami Upadhyay, Advocates.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in service—Transformer supply electricity to agricultural connections of complainant petitioner got burst and supply remained disrupted from 15.11.1996 to 28.11.1996—Loss of crop—District Forum relying on reports of Mamlatdar as also report of Agriculture Officer awarded compensation for loss of crop to each of four complainants with interest—State Commission set aside order in appeal —Revision—Loss of crop was alleged in respect of wheat, cotton, maize and castor—Castor and maize were kharif crop where as other two were Rabi crop—Ground on which loss was assessed by authorities was no where explained—District Forum erred in putting a blind reliance upon report of Mamlatdar and Agriculture Officer—Rule 18(a)(1) of State Electricity Rules provided protection against loss caused by accident—Breakdown of transformer was an accident—Respondent however failed to rectify the transformer and restore supply in one week as was provided in office circular—Respondent was liable to pay compensation for that deficiency in service and directed to pay Rs. 15,000 to each petitioner with cost Rs. 5,000. (Para 9 to 12)
B.K. Taimni, Member—This order will dispose off four revision petitions arising out of four separate complaints filed by the petitioners before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. The four complainants are Shri Kana Jiva Dhami, Shri Patel Nathabhai Ravjibhai, Shri Patel Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai & Patel Keshavlal Gordhanbhai and Shri Patel Govindbhai Nathabhai.
2. It was the case of the complainants before the District Forum that the petitioner/ complainant have electricity connection from the respondent ‘Electricity Board’ and they were enjoying the facility till 15.11.96 when the transformer got burnt and it was not repaired till 28.11.96 on account of which the complainants could not run the electric motor installed on their wells, thus, failed to irrigate the crops resulting in loss of crops. They relied upon the report of Mamlatadar as also the report of Agriculture Officer. It in these circumstances, four separate complaints were filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service praying for award of different amounts. The matter was resisted by the respondent/opposite party before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to payRs.1,06,000 to Patel Nathabhai Ravjibhai, Rs.2,25,000 to Patel Govindbhai Nathabhai, Rs. 1,10,000 to Kana Jiva Dhami and Rs. 30,000 to Patel Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai & Patel Keshavlal Gordhanbhai. All these amounts were to carry interest @12% p.a. from 30.6.97 to 31.12.2000 and interest @9% p.a. from 1.1.2001 till realisation. All these amounts were directed to be paid within 3 months failing which it was to carry interest @15% p.a. A cost of Rs.2,000 was also awarded to each of the complainants.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed four separate appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the complaints, hence, these revision petitions before us.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record. The order passed by the State Commission is based on two premises one legal and the other factual.
5. For legal premise, they have relied upon Rule 18(a)(i) of Gujarat Electricity Board, which reads as follows:
“The Board shall take all reasonable precautions to ensure continuity of supply of power to the consumer but shall not be responsible for any loss to him or damage to his plant and equipment due to interruptions in supply of power due to damage to the Board’s plant and equipment for reasons including but not limited to war mutiny riot, earthquake, cyclone, tempest, strike, civil commotion, lock-out, lightning, fire, flood, accident or breakdown of plant and machinery or causes beyond control of the Board (The Board shall give notice as early as possible of the probable duration of such interruptions in supply of power to the consumer).”
6. The sanctity of rules framed by any public authority were upheld, for which the State Commission relied upon the judgment of this Commission in the case of Faquir Chand & Ors. v. SDO (OP) Sub-Division, HVPN1 in which it is held:
“What the State Commission has done is to act within the instructions on the subject. We cannot expect the State Commission to go beyond the Rule/Regulation /Instructions on the subject. Since nothing to the contrary has been shown by the petitioner, we see no material before us to interfere with the order of the State Commission which is in conformity with the instructions on the subject. No jurisdictional error has been shown to call for our interference with the order of the State Commission. The order of the State Commission is upheld and both the Revision Petitions are dismissed as being devoid of merits. No orders as to costs.”
7. As far as the facts are concerned, State Commission, in our view, right
