ORDER K.S. Gupta, Member—Complaint was filed, inter-alia, alleging that the complainant is a Private Limited Co. having a cold storage at Ashikpur, Sasaram, Rohtash (Bihar). For running the cold storage the complainant needed electricity. The complainant entered into a renewed agreement with Bihar State Electricity Board- OP No. 1 on 1.7.1995. It was alleged that due to erratic supply and low voltage of electricity particularly during the months from April, 1997 to July, 1997, the potatoes stored in the cold storage got rotten. OP No. 1 Board was informed of the low voltage of electricity by the letters dated 25.4.1997, 1.5.1997 and 24.10.1997. Notice was also given on 4.2.1998 to the OP No. 1 Board. In para No. 18 of the complaint the break up of the claimed amount of Rs. 95.00 lakhs towards compensation has been given thus:- “a) Compensation for the loss of 9500 bags of potatoes at the rate of Rs. 350/- per bags. Rs. 33,25,000/- b) Compensation for the loss of rents in keeping 9500 bags of potatoes at the rate of Rs.100/- per bag. Rs. 9,50,000/- c) Damage for the loss of reputation and business of the complainant. Rs. 20,00,000/- d) Compensation for the loss of rents for this financial year. Rs. 20,25, 000/- e) Damage for the recurring loss to the business.” Rs. 12,00,000/- It was prayed that award of Rs.95.00 lakhs along with interest may be passed against OP No.1 Board. 2. OP Nos. 2 to 4 are the officials of OP No.1 Board. Board contested the complaint by filing written version on the affidavit of Kabilesh Prasad, General Manager/C.E., Central Area Electricity Board, Patna. It was alleged that the complainant took electricity connection for running the cold storage in the year 1986 which was subsequently renewed in the year 1995. In recent, the supply position of electric energy had improved. The Board supplies electric energy to the complainant’s—Cold Storage as also other cold storages situated in that area. It was claimed that under the 2nd proviso to clause No.1 (a) of the agreement dated 1.7.1995, the Board cannot be held responsible for the loss, if any, caused to the complainant due to alleged erratic and low voltage supply of electric energy. It was denied that the stoppage of electric supply to the complainant’s cold storage had resulted in perishing the potatoes as alleged. It was denied that the stoppage of electric supply to the complainant’s cold storage had resulted in perishing the potatoes as alleged. Receipt of the letters referred to in the complaint was not denied. It was further alleged that the complainant had not filed any evidence with the complaint showing that any of the agriculturalists had ever lodged any complaint or demanded compensation for any loss or the quantity of the potato alleged in the complaint was stored in the cold storage. It was stated that during the relevant period the rate of potato was not more than Rs.100 per quintal. Alleged claim of loss of rent made is highly exaggerated. 3. In support of the complaint, affidavit of Abu Noman. Managing Director of the Complainant Co. was filed. OP No.1 -Board filed the affidavit of Tarani Prasad Sharma, Executive Engineer. 4. Although erratic supply and low voltage of electricity to the cold storage of the complainant Co. is denied by OP No. 1- Board but we proceed to decide this complaint assuming that the supply of electricity was erratic and the voltage was low. Reference is needed to be made to clause 1 (a) of the aforesaid agreement dated 1.7.1995 as also Section 23 of the Bihar State Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1992 which have bearing in the case. Reference is needed to be made to clause 1 (a) of the aforesaid agreement dated 1.7.1995 as also Section 23 of the Bihar State Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1992 which have bearing in the case. Clause— 1(a) of the agreement reads thus:- “The Board shall furnish to the consumer and the consumer shall accept at the point of supply mentioned in the schedule hereto, on and from the date on which the said premises shall be connected with the supply distributing mains and during the continuance of the agreement, a constant supply of electrical energy at the pressure of ...volts, 50 cycles, 3 Phases, 3 writes, alternating current system subject to standard variations as provided in Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 or any other statutory modification thereof as may be in force from time to time for the purpose and up to the maximum specified (Hereinafter referred to as the contract demand) and under the conditions laid down in the Schedule : Provided firstly that the supply of electricity as stipulated above may, with previous general or particular warning be regulated, curtailed, staggered, or cut off altogether by or on behalf of the Board if in the opinion of the Board or its Electrical Executive Engineer for the supply area concerned be power position or any other emergency in the power system warrants such course of action: Provided secondly that the Board shall in no case whatsoever have any liability for any compensation to the consumer on account of failure in part of whole of supply of electrical energy. Said Section 23 runs as under:- “23. Insurance.—Every licensee shall insure the agricultural produce stored in his cold storage against loss or damage by fire, break-down (whether mechanically or otherwise) or such other like cause. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant Co. had not taken any policy to cover the damage caused to the stored potatoes as required by Section 23. It was contended by Shri Mohit Kumar Shah for OP No. 1— Board that under the 2nd proviso to clause 1 (a) of the agreement, the Board shall in no case whatsoever have any liability for the compensation claimed on ground of damage to the stored potatoes as a result of low voltage and erratic supply of electrical energy. It was contended by Shri Mohit Kumar Shah for OP No. 1— Board that under the 2nd proviso to clause 1 (a) of the agreement, the Board shall in no case whatsoever have any liability for the compensation claimed on ground of damage to the stored potatoes as a result of low voltage and erratic supply of electrical energy. Further, as the complainant did not get the potatoes stored insured, the Board is not additionally liable for the damage caused to the potatoes. It was pointed out that such a plea has also been taken in the affidavit of Tarani Pd. Sharma. While controverting the submission, it was urged by Shri Randhir Jain for the complainant that the provision contained in Section 23 is only directory .Both the said provisos are to be harmoniously read with clause 1 (a) of the agreement and the Board can not escape liability of the payment of compensation by taking recourse to the 2nd proviso of clause 1 (a). Bare reading of said Section 23 would show that it is mandatory. Had the complainant taken the insurance policy to cover the damage to the stored potatoes including due to low voltage and/or erratic supply of electric energy there would not have been necessity to file the present complaint. Further, 2nd proviso to clause 1 (a) leaves no room for doubt that OP No.1 Board can not be made liable for the compensation claimed on any of the said two grounds. That apart, under the 1st proviso, the Board can curtail/stagger or even cut off altogether supply of electricity to a consumer if the conditions laid in the proviso are satisfied. In the decision in Raghuwar Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors.1 Office Memo dated 3.4.1980 under which the power load was sanctioned, provided for continuous supply of electricity for 18 hrs. a day which was not made available to the complainant- cold storage. While interpreting this condition, it was held by this Commission that generation of electricity depends upon various factors and its demand and, therefore, the supplier can not be made responsible for the damage on account of stopping or curtailment or diminution in supply of energy. Thus, the complainant can not seek any help of clause 1 (a) of the said agreement which provides for constant supply of electric energy by the Board. Thus, the complainant can not seek any help of clause 1 (a) of the said agreement which provides for constant supply of electric energy by the Board. Decisions in Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Anand Medicos and Anr.2; Rajendra Kumar Tripathi v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Anr.3 and Krishna Cold Storage (P) Ltd. v. General Manager (Technical), New India Assurance Co.4 by this Commission are of no assistance to the complainant as the present case is to be decided with reference to the provision contained in said Section 23 and Clause 1(a) of the agreement dated 1.7.1995. 6. Complaint, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. No order as to cost. Complaint dismissed. *******