- (1.) THIS is complainant s appeal against the order dated 05.03.1993 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 804 of 1992, whereby the electricity bills relating to the saw mill of the complainant were cancelled and the electricity department was directed to restore the electricity connection to the saw mill of the complainant by 31.03.1993. It was further directed that in case the connection was not restored by the stipulated date, the complainant shall be paid damages @Rs. 400/ - per month w.e.f. 01.04.1993. Complainant felt aggrieved by the order on account of having not been granted compensation for deficiency in service of the electricity department and the appeal urged that the complainant was deprived of his livelihood by the failure of the electricity departmentto supply electricity, resulting which his saw mill remained non -operational. The complainant, therefore, prayed for modification of the order impugned to the extent that the complainant may be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,000/ - or any suitable order to that effect may be passed.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions in the light of the facts, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. In so far as the claim for compensation by way of loss of business due to closure of the saw mill was concerned, the same could not have legally been awarded by the District Forum. The reason being that Consumer Fora are not legally competent to grant compensation for loss of business as the Consumer Fora are designed to determine deficiency in service and award damages / compensation if the other party is found deficient. The law in that regard stand settled by the decision of the Hon ble National Commission in the matter of Purbanchal Cables and Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and others, 2008 3 CPJ 195. Another decision, which also lays down the similar principle was rendered by the Hon ble National Commission in the matter of Raj Cello Chem Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and another,2009 CTJ 165. In view of the settled principle of law, we see no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant that the District Forum fell in error in not awarding compensation by way of business loss occasioned to the complainant by reason of closure of saw mill due to non -supply of electricity.
(3.) IT was also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant appellant that the damages awarded for deficiency in service @Rs. 400/ - per month, were also on the lower side, keeping in view 2the peculiar facts of the case. We don t think that the damages awarded were not commensurate to the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant. Moreover, the learned counsel could not place before us material as may have supported the argument that the fixation of the alleged damages was arbitrary and there was need to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum. We may also safely state here that an element of arbitrariness can not be eliminated while deciding the amount of damages to be paid by the party which defaulted in rendering service and unless and until there is cogent material on record, the amount of damages awarded can not be held to be insufficient. In other words, having found no cogent reason to interfere with the view taken by the District Forum in the matter of award of damages @Rs. 400/ - per month, the appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.;