BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No. 123 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.35 OF 2011 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ADILABAD
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties no.2 & 3
A N D
- Kallam Ashok Reddy S/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 26 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 124 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.36 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Argula Bhuma Reddy S/o Marsimhulu
Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 125 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.37 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Kum.Baddam Chinnavva D/o Kista Reddy
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 126 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.38 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Smt Jakka @ Kallem Narsu Bai W/o Narayan Reddy
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 127 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.40 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Smt Kallem Raju Bai W/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 128 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.41 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Kallem Ganga Reddy W/o Bhojanna
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 129 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.42 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Kallem Santosh Reddy W/o Bhojanna
Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 130 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.43 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Smt Yakari Laxmi Bai W/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 131 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.44 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Jakka Sanjeev Reddy W/o Ramulu
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
F.A.No. 132 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.39 OF 2011
Between
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Appellants/opposite parties’ no.2 & 3
A N D
- Pushpala D/o Ganga Reddy
Aged 48 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Respondent/opposite party no.1
Counsel for the Appellants Govt. Pleader of State
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 Sri R.Vinod Reddy
F.A.No. 207 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.35 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Kallam Ashok Reddy S/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 26 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 208 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.36 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Arugla Bhuma Reddy S/o Narsimlu
Aged 60 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 209 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.37 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Baddam Chinnava W/o Kista Reddy
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 210 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.38 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Jakka @ Kallem Narsubai W/o Narayan Reddy
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 211 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.39 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Pushpala Bai D/o Ganga Reddy
Aged 48 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 212 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.40 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Kallem Raju Bai W/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 213 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.41 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Kallem Ganga Reddy W/o Bhojanna
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 213 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.NO.42 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellants/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Kallem Santosh Reddy W/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 32 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 215 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.43 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellant/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Yakari Laxmi Bai W/o Narsa Reddy
Aged 55 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
F.A.No. 216 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.44 OF 2011
Between
APNDCL Ltd., rep. by its
Superintending Engineer (OP)
Dwarakapuri Colony, Adilabad
Dist. Adilabad.
Appellant/opposite party no.1
A N D
- Jakka Sanjeev Reddy S/o Ramulu
Aged 50 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Adegoan Village, Mandal Ichoda
Dist: Adilabad
Respondent/complainant
- Land Acquisition Officer/
Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
- Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by
Its District Collector, Adilabad
Respondent/opposite parties no.2 & 3
Counsel for the Appellant Sri R.Vinod Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents No.2&3 Govt. Pleader of State
QUORUM :
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI PATIL VITHAL RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY JUNE
TWO THOUSAND SEVENTEEN
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
These appeals FA Nos.123 to 132 of 2014 are preferred by the appellants/opposite parties no.2 and 3 i.e., Land Acquisition Officer and Govt. of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collection while appeals F.A.Nos.207 to 216 of 2013 are preferred by the APNDCL Ltd., aggrieved by the orders of the District Forum, Adilabad dated 11.09.2012 in CC Nos.35 to 44 of 2011. Since the opposite parties are common and facts as well as points in question are common we have decided to dispose of all these appeals by this common order. F.A.No.123 of 2014 is taken as lead case.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land and earlier he cultivated the lands by taking electric service connection to his motors/water pumps from the opposite partyno.1 by paying advance DDs and also paying service bills regularly to the opposite party no.1. On deposit of money by the complainant with opposite party no.1 office the opposite partyno.1 allotted the electricity service connection to the complainant through the transformer/feeder situated at Adegaon (k) village, Mandal Ichoda. Since then the complainant was cultivating his agricultural lands by using the underground water through the electricity motors and getting profits of Rs.15,000/- per acre in the said agricultural lands. The complainant is regularly paying the service charges/electricity bills on using the power through the service connection through the transformer/feeder of electricity. The opposite party no.2 acquired the lands of the complainant wherein the transformer was situated at Adegaon (K) Village, in the year 2007 for formation of water tank for which the opposite party no.1 removed the transformer from that place by promising to erect the transformer at another suitable place in Adegaon (K) village. But the opposite party no.1 failed to erect the electric transformer. The complainant made several requests to the opposite party no.1 but it failed to erect the transformer at any other place. Hence, the complainant filed requisition before the opposite party no.3 on 02.03.2007 and 26.10.2009 in turn the opposite party no.3 forwarded the same to opposite party no.1. Even then the opposite party no.1 failed to erect the transformer. Vexed the with attitude f the opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice calling upon them to erect the transformer in Adegaon (K) village, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District and supply the electricity to the complainant together with compensation and costs. Despite receipt of notices the opposite parties neither replied nor erected the transformer. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to erect the electric transformer at Adegaon village, Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District together with damages of Rs.1,78,500/- and costs.
4. The opposite party no.1 while resisting the case admitted that it provided service connection No.30 to the agricultural land bearing No.24 to the extent of acres 1.11 cents at Adegaon Village belonging to the complainant. It also admitted that the complainant is regularly paying CC charges. It is contended that due to acquisition of lands and submergence of the said lands, the transformer was removed. For erection/shifting the transformers the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have to make payment and to that effect an amount Rs.7,59,990/- was estimated and informed the same to the opposite parties no.2 and 3. Even after receipt of estimation the opposite parties no.2 and 3 failed to arrange the payment. The opposite party no.1 is ready for shifting of lines and extension of supply. If any loss is sustained by the complainant due to not shifting the transformers, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are held responsible for not arranging the payment. Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 resisted the case contending that the opposite party no.2 has acquired some of the lands for formation of tank at Adegaon Village to an extent of 148 acres. It is denied that there was transformer in the acquired land as per the preliminary valuation report given by MRO. As per the report of MRO, Ichoda dated 17.05.2006 there are no tombs, structures and PTs under acquisition except bore wells, four wells, 32 trees and pipelines of 750 ft. The notifications issued by the Government U/s 4, 5A and 6 of Land Acquisition there is no mention of the transformer in any of the lands acquired. If there was a transformer the opposite party no.1 cannot shift the transformer without being paid the shifting charges. Hence, the opposite parties no.2 and 3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got Exs.A1 to A7 marked while on behalf of the opposite party no.1, the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle has filed his affidavit and got Ex.B1 marked. During the pendency of the appeal, Exs.B2 to B10 were marked vide orders dated 20.03.2017 in FAIA 1855 of 2014.
7. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.35 of 2011 by orders dated 11.09.2012 directing the opposite parties no.2 and 3 to pay Rs.7,59,990/- to the opposite partyno.1 and on such receipt of the amount the opposite party start shifting of lines and erection of transfer providing supply to the complainant fields. Further the opposite parties no.1 to 3 are directed to pay Rs.80,000/- towards loss of crop with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs.500/-.
8. Aggrieved by the said decision, the opposite party no.1 preferred appeal F.A.No.207 of 2013 contending that thought the District Forum observed that the opposite parties no.2 and 3 ha to pay an amount of Rs.7,59,990/- to the opposite party no.1 to shift the electrical lines and erect the transformers but erred in directing the opposite party no.1 also to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. While the opposite parties no.2 and 3 preferred the appeal F.A.No.123 of 2014 contending that the appellants are the sovereign functionaries and have not provided any service for consideration and not amenable to the jurisdiction under C.P.Act. There is no contract of service for consideration between the complainant and the appellants. There was no transformer in the lands of the complainant. The appellants have acquired the lands for a project in the general interests of public at large following the due procedure prescribed and have passed the award fixing the compensation etc. Even in case if compensation is inadequately awarded there is appeal provided under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants are facilitators between the requisitioning Department and the land holders and are acquiring lands for requisitioning department which pays the compensation for lands. The requisition for shifting of transformer was made by Irrigation Department and not the appellants. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
10. The counsel for the Opposite parties and the complainant had advanced their arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version in addition to filing written arguments on behalf of both the parties. Heard both sides.
11. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
12. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the owner of agriculture land and cultivated it by taking electricity connection from opposite partyno.1 by paying bills. On the other hand the contention of the opposite party no.1 is that due to acquisition of land it removed the transformer and promised to erect the same in a new place for which the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have to make payment of shifting charges. The opposite party no.1 had given an estimation charges of Rs.7,59,990/- and intimated to the opposite party no.2 and requested to arrangement payment. But the opposite parties no.2 and 3 were failed to arrange the payment and due to the said failure it could not erect the transformer. The complainant vide Exs.A1 and A2 dated 21.03.2009 and 26.10.2009 made representations to the District Collector stating that Irrigation Department informed them that they paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the Electricity Department and requested the Collector to arrange laying of new lines in the agriculture fields so that they could do agriculture in their fields. Exs.A3 and A4 are the details of farm details show that the complainant is having lands. Ex.A5 are the copy of electricity bills showing that they possess electricity connection and have been paying the electricity charges. Ex.A6 is the legal notice dated 23.03.2010 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties sno.1 to 3 calling upon them to erect new transformer and supply the electricity to the complainant and also pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to him. There is no reply to the said legal notice from the opposite parties.
13. Evidently, the opposite party no.1 till the issuance of the legal notice had not given estimation to the opposite party no.2 and 3. Ex.B1 is the copy of letter dated 28.12.2010 addressed by the opposite party no.1 to the opposite party no.2 wherein it was mentioned that an estimate of Rs.7,59,990/- has been sanctioned towards shifting of lines for extension of supply 10 Nos agricultural services in the shape of DD drawn in favour of Divisional Engineer/OP/NPDCL/Adilabad.
14. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have filed petition FAIA NO.1855 of 2014 to receive documents and the said petitioner was allowed and the documents filed by them were marked as Exs.B2 to B10. Ex.B2 is the copy of letter from MSS Ravi Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer Ichoda Division No.II, Ichoda to the Divisional Engineer Electrical, Operation, APCL, Adilabad dated 10.05.2007 and it reads as under:
With reference to the above, I am herewith enclosing cheque bearing No.D114306 dated 5.5.2007 for Rs.7,21,605/- (rupees seven lakh twenty one thousand six hundred and five only) towards shifting charges of electrical poles and electrical transformer of above works with a request to shift the poles and transformer at an early ate in both sites.
The receipt of cheque may please be acknowledged in the first instance.
15. Ex.B3 is the copy of account payee cheque dated 5.5.2007 for Rs.7,21,605/-. Ex.B7 is the letter from M.S.S.Ravi Babu, Deputy Executive Engineer, M.I.Sub-Division No.II, Ichoda to the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer, AP Transco, Adilabad dated 30.12.2006 wherein he stated that the transformer bearing No.10 and Service No.40 is existing in the fields which is coming under submergence of tank and causing hindrance to the work. He requested the Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer to kindly arrange to shift the said transformer immediately and submit the bill of cost for arranging payment at an early date. Ex.B5 and B4 are also similar letters dated 12.02.2007 and 15.02.2007 with similar contents mentioned in the Ex.B7.
16. From the above letters Exs.B2 to B5 and B7 it is apparent that the requisitioning department had requested the opposite party no.1 in 2006 itself for shifting of transformer in view of the formation of new tank and also requested to send Bill of costs. Thereafter, the Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation) APNPDCL, Adilabad, Rural requested for payment for dismantling and shifting a transformer and accordingly a cheque was issued to the opposite party no.1 through Pay & Accounts Officer, Nirmal for a sum of Rs.7,21,605/- ( Rs.4,96,905/- + Rs.2,24,700/-) on 05.05.2007 and the said cheque was forwarded by Dy. Executive Engineer, MI & CAD Division on 10.5.2007 to Divisional Engineer (OP) of opposite party no.1 organization. This clearly shows that shifting charges for the transformer lines were already made by Requisitioning department much before the acquisition took place. Though the opposite party no.1 received shifting charges but for the reasons best known to it failed to shift the transformer.
17. Ex.B6 is the copy of letter from B.Dudiya, Dy. Executive Engineer M.I.S.D.No.2, Ichoda to the Divisional engineer (Operations) APNPDCL, Adilabad dated 17.07.2013 which reads as under:
Anent to the above subject, vide ref 1st cited the Dy. Executive Engineer MISD No.2 Ichoda has deposited an amount of Rs.7,21,605/- vide cheque No.D114306 dated 05.05.2007 for shifting of Transformer/HT Lines in Adegaon and Boath Villages. Vide ref 2nd cited the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad requested to report about the encashment of the above cheque as the Government Pleader, APSCDR Commission, Hyderabad required the encashment details of t he above cheque for onward filing appeal in Hon’ble State Commission, APSCDR Commission AP Hyderabad.
Hence, I request to send the encashment details of the above cheque at an early date.
But no such details were provided by the opposite party no.1 to Executive Engineer M.I.S.D.No.2, Ichoda.
18. It is the contention of the opposite parties no.2 and 3 that they are sovereign functionaries and have not provided any service to the complainant for any consideration and therefore are not amenable to the jurisdiction under CP Act. The opposite party no.2 has acquired the lands as required by the Department of Irrigation for construction of a water tank for the benefit of villages in general by providing irrigation facility. There is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and that none fo the said opposite parties no.2 and 3 have ever offered any service to the complainant for any consideration.
19. Our first and foremost consideration is whether the complainant- is a consumer or not. Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines consumer in the following manner:-
Consumer means any person who-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid; and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, of under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;
Explanation For the purposes of the clause, commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment;
20. From the afore-quoted definition of consumer, it is manifest and apparently clear that a person can be said to be a consumer if he hires or avails services for consideration.
21. Service has been defined in section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act as under:-
Service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;
Deficiency has been defined in section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act as under:-
deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;
22. Bearing in mind the definitions of consumer, service and deficiency and looking to the facts of the case at hand, we have to decide if the complainant is a consumer and has availed services for consideration and if the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have committed deficiency in service. Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 has acquired the lands as required by the Department of Irrigation for construction of a water tank for the benefit of villages in general by providing irrigation facility. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed, conducted enquiry and passed award fixing the compensation etc., strictly following all such procedures which are in consonance to the Land Acquisition Act. The complainant is a consumer of 0nly the opposite party no.1 from whom he has availed electricity service. Land Acquisition for a public tank and any consequential actions are a part fo sovereign functions of the opposite parties no.2 an 3 and as such do not come under the purview of consider Protection Act. Admittedly, the opposite parties executed the sovereign act of the Government and are as such part of the sovereign authority.
23. The Honble Apex Court in S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps, Delhi, I(1996) CPJ 11(SC), wherein the Honble Apex Court held that when authorities discharge the duties as a part of the sovereign power of the State, they are not answerable to the authorities constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. In another decision, i.e., Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. v. Dr. B.N. Raman, III(2006) CPJ 1(SC), the Honble Apex Court has held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for formation of National Commission, State Commission and District Forum. These are remedial agencies. Their functions are quasi-judicial. The purpose of these agencies is to decide consumer disputes. Activities relating to non-sovereign powers of statutory bodies are within the purview of the Act.
24. The dictum as quoted above of the Honble Apex Court mandates that the forums under the Consumer Protection Act are quasi judicial authorities and cannot assume jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the sovereign authority and any person and the disputes between the non-sovereign bodies and any person can only be adjudicated by the District Forums, State Commissions and the National Commission. Since the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are the Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer and the Government of Telangana represented by its District Collector , as we find from the factual aspects of the case, acted under the sovereign authority of the State, they are not amenable/answerable to the consumer fora, and the complainant having not paid anything to them cannot be held to be a consumer, nor are the opposite parties no.2 and 3 service providers. The opposite parties no.2 and 3 have only facilitated the land acquisition which is purely matter vis-à-vis public policy and no deficiency of services was done during such a process of acquisition.
25. After hearing the parties and going through the entire facts of the case, as put forth, we hold that the consumer complaint is an outcome of misconception and is not at all maintainable against the opposite parties no.2 and 3.
26. Now we see whether the complainant is consumer against the opposite party no.1 or not. The complainant is having electricity service connection and the complainant comes under consumer-relationship only with regard to the opposite party no.1.
27. As per the evidence on record it is to be seen that the requisitioning department had requested the opposite party no.1 in 2006 itself for shifting of transformer in view of the formation of new tank and also requested to send Bill of costs. The opposite party no.1 wrote letters for release of an amount of Rs.7,21,605/- and accordingly a cheque was issued to the opposite party no.1 through Pay & Accounts Officer, Nirmal for a sum of Rs.7,21,605/- ( Rs.4,96,905/- + Rs.2,24,700/-) on 05.05.2007. This shows that the Irrigation Department had already paid the charges for shifting of transformer. The opposite party no.1 though received the shifting charges on 5.5.2007 failed to shift the transformer, which amounts to deficiency of service on its part and the opposite party no.1 only is liable to the complainant for the consequences thereof. Hence, the order of the District Forum deserves to be modified by directing the opposite party no.1 to shift the lines and erect the transformer and thereafter provide supply of electricity to the agricultural service connection. While fixing an amount of compensation payable to the complainant, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the complainant has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the complainant. Therefore, the amount awarded by the District Forum towards compensation has no basis to award such compensation. Even the complainant could not file any document to show that how much amount he is getting when the transformer was existing and how much water he is getting to the fields and the nature of crop he is cultivating. Absolutely there are no details were filed by the complainant for quantification of compensation. However, due to the acts of the opposite party no.1 the complainant certainly suffered loss to some extent and we fix the loss at Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.80,000/- what was granted by the District Forum. We therefore of the opinion that the complaint against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 is not maintainable and the opposite party no.1 is alone is liable for the deficiency in service on its part.
In the result the appeals F.A.Nos.123 to 132 of 2016 are allowed and the orders of the District Forum against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are set aside. While the appeals F.A.Nos.207 to 216 of 2014 are allowed in part directing the opposite party no.1 to start work of shifting lines, erection of transformer providing supply to the agricultural service connection of the complainants and further directed the opposite party no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants in each case together with costs of Rs.500/-. The complaint against the opposite parties no.2 and 3 is dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 02.06.2017
