This is a discussion on The Executive Engineer (Rural), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR Appeal No. 1308/2002 1. The Executive Engineer (Rural), Jaipur Vidyut ...
BEFORE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR
Appeal No. 1308/2002
1.
The Executive Engineer (Rural), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Kherda, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
2.
The Asstt. Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bonli, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
..Appellants-Opposite Parties
VS
Hanuman Prasad S/o Shri Ram Sahay Gupta, R/o Gram Bahnoli, Tehsil Bonli, Distt. Sawai Madhopur.
..Respondent-Complainant
Before:
Mr. G.S. Hora, Presiding Member
Mr. Sikandar Punjabi, Member
Present:
Mr. Purshottam Sharma, counsel for the Appellants
Mr. R.K. Tongawat, counsel for the Respondent
ORDER Dated:28/05/2009
PER Mr. G.S. HORA, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal arises out of the mojority order dated 11.9.2002 passed by the learned District Forum, Sawai Madhopur whereby the Appellants were directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 31.10.1994. They were further directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 49,280/- for machinery and other equipments + Rs. 6,000/- as house rent and Rs. 15,000/- which was paid by the Complainant to the Bank as interest and further to pay Rs. 500/- as litigation expenses.
We have heard both the counsels and gone through the file.
Letter dated 22.12.1992 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Sawai Madhopur goes to show that the Complainant was selected as 'un-employed entrepreneur'. On 31.10.1992, the Complainant applied to the Appellant for sanction of 10 HP electric connection to the Appellant after depositing a sum of Rs. 2,100/- in order to run oil expeller. The Complainant was issued a letter on 1.1.1993 by the Appellant informing him that the Appellant was in a position to sanction to him the desired electric connection.
2
On the basis of such assurance, the Complainant obtained a loan of Rs. 35,000/- from a Bank. It is further alleged by the Complainant that he had taken a premises on rent wherein he could instal his expeller. He also purchased certain machineries. Vide letter dated 31.10.1994, it was informed to the Complainant by the Appellant that it was not feasible to sanction 10 HP connection to him from the existing transformer. It was under circumstances that the Complainant approached the learned District Forum claiming compensation on several grounds.
By issuing a letter dated 1.1.1993, the Complainant was informed that he would be given 10 HP connection. Thereafter vide letter dated 31.10.1994, the Complainant was informed that it was not feasible to give 10 HP connection from the existing transformer. Meanwhile the Complainant had spent some amount on purchase of machinery and its installation etc. There is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. The Appellant should have ascertained at the initial stage whether it was possible to give 10 HP connection or not? Had the Complainant been informed about their inability in giving him connection, he would not have spent money for purchase of machinery and other items. The question is how much amount, the Complainant is entitled to get. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to show that the Complainant had paid Rs. 6,000/- as a house rent. He deposited a sum of Rs. 2,100/- which amount he is entitled to get back from the Appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from 31.10.1994. The Complainant purchased machinery for Rs. 2,849/- on 29.3.1993 and for Rs. 28,930/- on 30.3.1993. He spent Rs. 5,000/- on installation. So far as the installation charges are concerned, the Complainant can be awarded Rs. 5,000/- on this count. The Complainant had to pay interest to the Bank on loan amount. Keeping this fact in view and the fact that out of machinery and other equipments, the Complainant received some amount, he is awarded Rs. 25,000/- in lumpsum.
Consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms:
1) The Complainant shall get Rs. 2,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 31.10.1994.
2) The Complainant shall also get Rs. 30,000/-. He shall get interest on this amount @ 9% per annum from the date of order of the Forum below.
Cost easy.
Member Presiding Member
Hiralal