SUKANTI SAHOO Vs. CESCO OF ORISSA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation.

(2.) THE opposite parties in the preliminary written version pleaded that the claim of compensation is imaginary and is based on mere guess. According to them, a new transformer was replaced within one month after complying with all official formalities.

(3.) THERE appears to be sufficient force in the contention of the opposite parties that the petitioner by making imaginary claim has filed the complaint. The transformer, which broke down was replaced within the period of one month and as such loss, if any sustained by the petitioner, could not have been Rs. 25,00,000. As per agreement, the petitioner herself had undertaken to instal the transformer. Its maintenance was with the opposite parties. It is a case of vis major. No body has control over the functioning of a machinery. It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of opposite party s negligence the transformer broke down. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the allegation of the petitioner that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is base less.