1. We have heard both sides. The appellant relies upon Clause 4 of the agreement between it and the licensee.
2. A conjoint reading of Clause 4, including its proviso, Clause 5 and Clause 6 of the agreement indicates that the agreement contemplated that it is the responsibility of the licensee to ensure supply of power up to the point of supply i.e. from the stage of generation, including transmission, up to the sub-station, which is mentioned as the point of supply in Clause 5.
3. After the point of supply, all the equipments the maintenance of such equipments till the stage of consuming the power, is the responsibility of the consumer. The main part of Clause 4 applies to the failure to supply power on account of "Force-Majeure" up to the point of supply only.
4. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the detailed order of the learned Single Judge is correct in not granting relief to the petitioner/ appellant because of the alleged "technical snag" in the transformer, which is installed in the premises of the consumer, after the point of supply i.e. after the sub-station.
5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the transformer is beyond the control of the licensee and the appellant-consumer cannot tamper with it and that the transformer developed some defect because of fluctuation of the power supplied by the licensee, may be a good ground for suing the licensee for damages, but it cannot be a good ground for deviating from the terms of agreement by which both the sides are bound.
6. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
