Full Judgment
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Nanded dismissing consumer complaint No.222/2008. (for the sake of brevity the appellant hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondents as œopponents?)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the complainant Shri. Digambar Jadhav is a consumer of opponent having electric connection in his field bearing consumer No.AG-568660015805. According to the complainant in the year 2007-08 he had grown sugarcane and other crops in his field by irrigating the field with the help of electric pump. However, in the month of Dec.2007 the opponents disconnected his electric supply on the ground that he made default in payment bill of electricity charges. Therefore his entire crops are damaged sustaining him loss of Rs.2,65,000/-. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents the complainant filed consumer complaint claiming damages at Rs.2,65,000/- and compensation Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.5000/- more towards cost of the proceeding.
3. By written version the opponent resisted the complaint contending inter alia that the electric supply of the complainant was not disconnected though the complainant committed default in the payment of electricity charges. It has denied all other adverse averments made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
4. On hearing both sides and considering the documents on record District Consumer Forum held that the opponents have not committed deficiency in service. In keeping with this finding the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.
5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order the complainant came to this Commission in appeal.
6. We heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version and copies of other documents.
7. It is submitted by Adv. Shri. D. Y. Nandedkar, learned counsel for the complainant that though the complainant was ready and willing to pay the electricity arrears by installments, the opponents without any notice illegally disconnected the electricity supply and therefore the entire standing crops in the field of the complainant were damaged. It is further submitted that complainant had given request application with the opponents for granting installments and paid three monthly installments of Rs.2000/- with a hope that the opponents would consider his request for granting installments. But instead of granting installment and communicating the complainant; illegally disconnected his electric supply. According to Mr. Nandedkar, though the complainant was defaulter in payment of electricity charges, the opponent should not have disconnected the electric supply without notice. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Sec.156 (i) of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is obligatory on the part of MSEDCL to issue notice to the consumer before disconnecting electric supply etc. But without giving such notice the opponents disconnected the electric supply of the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service. It is submitted that due to illegal act of the opponents the entire crops from the field of complainant are damaged and therefore the opponents are liable to pay damages at Rs.2,65,000/-.
8. Per contra, Mr. S. N. Tandale, learned counsel for the opponent submitted that though the complainant was defaulter, his electric connection was not at all disconnected. But the complainant has filed this false consumer complaint alleging that the electric supply was disconnected etc. It is further submitted that even if the opponents have disconnected the electric supply it was not illegal act on the part of opponents as the complainant was defaulter etc. He has submitted that no prior notice for disconnection of the electric supply is required. Pointing out the provisions of 156 (i) of the Electricity Act he has submitted that it is not applicable to the present case, as the complainant has not deposited any amount under protest as per the proviso of said section. On perusal of Sec. 156 of Electricity Act we find much force in the submission of Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the opponents. Because it does not reflect that prior notice is required for disconnection of electric supply of the defaulter. It is also not the contention of the complainant that he paid the amount of arrears under protest. However the complainant has deposited some amount presuming that the opponent MSEDCL would grant installments etc. Therefore according to Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the opponent though the crops from the field of complainant are damaged the opponents are not at all responsible etc.
9. Since undisputedly the complainant was defaulter and no installments were granted by the opponent though the complainant had shown his willingness to pay the arrears by the installment, the opponents cannot be held liable for damaging the crops from the field of complainant, even if it is presumed that the electric supply was disconnected. Therefore the District Consumer Forum has rightly negativated the complainants averment that opponents committed deficiency in service by disconnecting the electric supply of the complainant illegally etc. We find no glaring error or any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order. Hence no interference is warranted.
10. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.