Back
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
CUTTACK
of 2008
First Appeal No.
(In the present case, a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation
and Rs.1000/- as cost have been awarded by the Dist.
Forum, Bargarh. 50% of the said awarded amount i.e. a
sum of Rs.3000/- has been paid along with the appeal
memo by the appellants in shape of Bank Draft drawn in
favour of Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Orissa, Cuttack.)
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application under Section 15 of the Consumer Dispute Act.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
An application challenging the Order Dated 13.3.2008 passed by
the
Dist.
Consumer Dispute
Redressal Forum. Bargarh in
Consumer Complaint No. I of 2007.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Sub Divisional officer, Electrical, WESCO,
Bhatli, PO: Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh.
Sectional Oficer, Electrical WESCO,
Bhatli Section, PO: Bhatli, Dist. Bargarh.
Executive Engineer, Electrical, WESCO,
Bargarh Electrical Division, Bargarh.
3. Opp. Parties -APPELLANTS
VERSUS
Bibhuti Bhusan Pradhan,
Son of Bairagi Pradhan,
AT/Po: Mulbar, Dist. Bargarh. (Complainant)
RESPONDENT
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
F.A. 279 OF 2008
18) 1922
Heard the learned pounsel for the
appellant.
None appears for the respondent.
This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile
Consumer Protection Act, 1986(herein-after called the
Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be
referred to
with reference to their respective status
before the learned District Forum.
4. The unfolded story of the complainant is
that the complainant has got aghicultural land and for
that need to receive the power| supply from the OP
through a 63 KVA feeder at villagÇ Mulbar. It is alleged
inter-alia that the L.I. point was became inoperative on
22.12.2006. In this regard the matter was informed on
26.12.2006 by Regd.Post with AD Also the complainant
has informed the OP on 30.12.2006
As
it was not
Date of
Order
Office note as to action (if any),
taken on Order
SI. No.
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
repaired, the complainant sust¡ined loss, mental agony
due to damage to his crops. Hehce, the complaint.
5. The OP filed written version stating that the
transformer became inoperative
on 16.01.2007 and
again it was operative on 18.0t.2007, as such the OP
has neither neglected on thei part nor liable for any
damage to the property of the complainant.
6. After hearing both the parties, learned District
Forum passed the following ordef:-
Xxxxxx
XXXXX
XXXXXXXx
The Opposite parties are directed jointly and
severally to pay a sum of Fs.5,000/-(Rupees Five
thousand)only towards compensation for mental
agony and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand)only
for litigation cost to the complainant within 30
days from the, date of this order or else the
awarded amount will carry an interest of 18 % per
annum till the date of actual payment."
OGP-MP-CTCP (FS&CW) 2-1,00,000-29-6-2020
Office note as to action (if any)
taken on Order
SI. No.
Date of
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE
of Order
Order
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that learned District Forum has|committed error in laww
by not considering the written version with affidavit filed
by the OP. According to him |the OP received the
information on 16.01.2007 and immediately took the
step to replace the transforme
on 18.01.2007. This
aspect has not been examined by the learned District
Forum. The learned District Forurn should have applied
judicial mind to the fact that the compensation as
awarded is not proportionate to the case as admitted by
the OP because the prompt steps was taken by the OP.
to replace the transformer. Furthet he submitted that the
learned District Forum has passed order for payment of
compensation U/S-14 of the Act without any order for
removal of deficiency of service inasmuch as the
compensation as required U/S-14 of the Act
