Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/101/2013

Kotha Venkateswarulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Additional Assistant engineer Operation A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V.Amarnath

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  27-07-2013

                                                             Date of disposal   :  12-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Wednesday, this the 12th day of AUGUST, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

                                          C.C.No.101/2013

 

Kotha Venkateswarlu,

S/o.Rosaiah, Hindu,

Employee, aged about 54 years,

Residing at D.No.26-2-1580,

Venkatareddynagar, Vedayapalem,

Nellore-4.                                                                …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. The Additional Assistant Engineer,

Operation, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd.,

Bogole,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

 

2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

Operation, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd.,

Kavali Town,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

 

3. The Divisional Engineer,

Operation, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd.,

Kavali Town,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

 

4. The Superintendant Engineer,

A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd.,

Vidyutbhavan,

Nellore City,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                    …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 27-07-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Amarnath, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri K.Padmanabhaiah,                       

Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

    This Consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to direct them to provide the new electrical 16 KVA 3 PH DTR distribution transformer in good condition to his lands, to pay an amount of Rs.4,62,000/- towards the rent and other miscellaneous expenses are spent by him to get 9 wettings from the months of February 2013 till May, 2013 for causing deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4 and subsequent loss caused by them from November, 2011 to April, 2014; to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony caused by them; to pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- towards the complaint; and to pay subsequent interest at 24% p.a. on the said amount of Rs.4,62,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization and also to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may please to pass deem it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:-

 

I.  (a)It is the case of the complainant that he got Ac.10.00 cents of land bearing S.No.412; P.No.318 of Tallur revenue village accounts, Bogole mandal, S.P.S.R., Nellore District. He had purchased the above said land in the year 2005 from one Mr.Nakka Venkateswarlu and 5 others for a total sale consideration amount of 2 lakhs of rupees and got it registered a document no:1908/2005 dt.4-7-2005 executed by the above said Mr.Nakka Venkateswarlu and 5 others in his favour.

 

(b) While so, it is also further submitted by the complainant in para-3 of his complaint that after purchasing the above said lands, in the year 2005, he had applied for 2 electrical motor service connections and 1^st opposite party demanded him to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- for  providing each electrical motor service connection.  The complainant had applied to the 1^st opposite party as ayacutdar under Somasila project, Sri Venkateswarapalem major distribution canal to provide 16 KVA 3 PH DTR for his lands for transformer and for which 1^st opposite party had demanded him to deposit further amount of Rs.60,000/- in the year 2008 and accordingly he had deposited initially Rs.20,000/- for his two electrical motor service connections then he was allotted service connections nos:431 and 432 to his lands and thereby 1^st opposite party had also provided 16 KVA, 3ph DTR transformer for his lands in the year 2008 itself.  Since the date of providing 2 electrical motor service connections along with transformer making transcon industries with a capacity of 16 KVA vide Sl.No.T1 168757 to the lands of complainant and he had been paying electricity service consumption charges since 2008, for every 6 months at once as demanded by the opposite parties department regularly in time and without any default.  He used to raise paddy crop during the period of Rabi season for some time and subsequently he did not raise any crop as the Govt. of A.P. had declared crop holiday for months which commenced from May, 2012 till the end of January, 2013.

 

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant in paras 4 and 5 of his complaint that he had kept his land vacant without raising any crop because of declaration of crop holiday by the Govt. of A.P.Hyderabad.  Unfortunately, the said electricity of transformer worth about Rs.60,000/- in the lands of complainant, was committed theft by unknown culprits and offenders on 24-11-2012 on night hours and the same was informed by watchman to him.  Immediately, the complainant gave a report dated       25-11-2012 to the opposite parties.  Thereafter, 1^st opposite party had rushed to the lands of complainant on the same day and at that time, the complainant and watchman are present and they had noticed that the committing of theft of the said transformer and 1^st opposite party told him that there is no necessity to come to the office of 1^st opposite party and also assured him that his report will be sent to the officials of opposite parties for making estimation and after approval they (opposite parties) will provide new transformer within one week from the date of his complaint.  The opposite parties are sent to the said report to the concerned police station and police will register F.I.R. along with particulars and then the same will be brought to the notice of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Kavali Town.

 

    It is also further submitted by the complainant that lineman of 1^st opposite party’s office also personally inspected his lands and prepared the rough sketch and assured him that line man will definitely inform the same to the Additional Assistant Engineer, Bogole mandal, Nellore District.  Even then, he had approached the 1^st opposite party personally on number of occasions since the date of his complaint and requested to provide new transformer to his lands and expressed his intention to raise commercial crop i.e., cotton.  Then, it is for the Kharif season for which 1^st opposite party also assured the complainant that the new transformer will be provided within a week.  The complainant had approached the SHO of Tippa P.S. and S.H.O. Bitragunta P.S. in the 2^nd week of December, 2012 and further narrated about the theft of electrical transformer and register a case basing upon the report of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party but S.H.O. Bitragunta P.S. told him that he had already received the copy of complaint dt.25-11-2012 from Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, Bogole and also assured the complainant that the electrical transformer will be provided to him before the end of December, 2012.  But, all the assurances made by them are proved futile.

 

(d) It is also further submitted by the complainant in the para 6 of his complaint that he raised cotton crop in his lands and the same is intimated to 1^st opposite party in the 1^st week of Feb,2013 onwards with an extent of about Ac 8-00 cents of land by taking a generator from Amman Generators, Nellore-3 for lease of rent.  The particulars of wettings and hire-rent of generator and other miscellaneous expenses which are spent by the complainant, as mentioned as below are:

 

Sl. No.			Month	No.of days		Hire & Misc. expenses for generator per day in Rupees					Total Expenses
						Hire charges Per day	Diesel Consum- ption charges per day (20 hrs)	Opera-tion charges per day	Convey ance of genera-tor charges	Total charges per day
(1)		(2)			(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)
1.	Feb, 2013 (one Wetting			2 days		2,000/-	120Lts X Rs.50/-Rs.6,000/	Rs.500/-	Rs.1,500/-	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
2.	March, 2013 two Wettings			4 days		-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	Rs.40,000/-
3.	Apl”13 (3wettings			6 days		-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	Rs.60,000/-
4.	May (3 wettings			6 days		-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	-do-	Rs.60,000/-
	End of May, 2013										Rs.1,80,000/-

 

 (e)  It is also further submitted by the complainant in para 7 of his complaint that he had also gave a report to Superintendant of Police on 20-05-2013 and requesting him to direct the Tippa P.S. to register F.I.R. vide No.1285/2013 with an endorsement that  to contact opposite parties to take necessary action. The complainant had spent Rs.1,80,000/- for rent  of generator and expenses incurred, inspite of regular payments of electrical charges to the opposite parties without any default till today.  The complainant, being a government servant who is working as Junior Engineer, R.W.s. department, Nellore and also as a respectable riot.  The opposite parties 1 to 4 vicariously liable to pay the total amount of Rs.3,80,000/- to the complainant apart from demanding to provide the said electricity transformer in the lands of the complainant .

                                                                                                      

   The complainant had also paid electricity consumption charges to the opposite parties with regard to motors 431 and 432.

 

    (f) It  is also further stated by the complainant in para -8 of his complaint that he got issued legal notice dated 1-6-2013 to the opposite parties 1 to 4.  A copy of it,  also was sent to the Hon’ble Chief justice of A.P.  The complainant had also got issued a separate legal notices dated 1-6-2013 to the 1^st opposite party  and to the S.H.O. of Bitragunta P.S. (2) C.I. of Police, Kavali P.S. and D.S.P.Kavali and S.P. of Kavali and the above said two legal notices  are duly served on the opposite parties and Hon’ble C.J. of A.P. High Court, Hyderabad.  All the Opposite parties/respondents 1 to 4 are utterly failed in not giving any reply to the above said notices dtd.1-6-2013.  The compliance efforts are proved to futile.  The complainant had got filed a documents along with the complaint as under (a) electricity charges/payment receipts numbering two for these motors bearing Nos.431 for Rs.2374/- and 432 for Rs.2375/- on 27-08-2012 ; (b) an office copy of the complainant with regard to correspondence of letters made by additional Assistant Engineer, Operation Bologu to the SHO, Bogolu Mandal and a copy was also sent to Assistant Divisional  Engineer and Divisional Engineer Operation, APSPDC, Kavali dated 27-11-2012; (c) Office letter addressed by Junior Line Man, Operation A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Bogole informing about his inspection dt.26-11-2012 on the 16KV 3 PH DTR Distribution  Transformer and also about the committing of theft above the said transformer by unknown culprits; (d) LT Sketch prepared by the Addl. Assistant Engineer; (e) 05-2013 xerox copy of Official correspondence letter sent by Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Bogole to the S.H.O. of Kapparallathippa P.S., Bogole Mandal, informing about the committing of theft of 16 KVA 3 PH DTR Distribution Transformer by the unknown offenders (f) 01-06-2013 an office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainant through his advocate to the respondents and also copy  sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of A.P.Hyderabad; (7 to 11) postal receipts in Original (g)01-06-2013 office copy of the 2^nd legal notice got issued by the complainant through his advocate to the 1^st opposite party and the copy also sent to the S.H.O. of Bitragunta P.S. and others and the same was sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of A.P.High Court, Hyderabad; (13 to 18) postal receipts in original; (19& 20) 05-06-2013 original postal served acknowledgement cards from the Hon’ble Chief Justice of A.P. High court, Hyderabad; (h) 03-06-2013 original postal served acknowledgement card from the DSP, Kavali. (i)04-03-2013 original served postal acknowledgement card from S.H.O. of Bitragunta P.S., S.P.S.R.Nellore Dt. About  the committing of theft of 16 KVA 3 PH Distribution Transformer by unknown culprits from the complainant”s lands. (j) (23 & 24) 17-06-13 Electricity service charges payment receipts paid by the complainant to his motors Nos.431 & 432 respectively which are computerized receipts and hence no need of signature;

 

 

 

Interlocutory Applications are filed by the complainant in the above said consumer case

(g)  It is further submitted by the complainant in paras 9 to 11 of his complaint that he got filed I.A.No.136/2013 on 17-09-2013 against the opposite parties 1 to 4, to direct them to provide new electrical 16 KV 3 Ph DTR distribution transformer in good condition and duly restore motor service connections to his motors situated to his lands.  But the said opposite parties did not file their counter in I.A.No.136/2013 and this Hon’ble Forum was pleased to allow the petition by its order dt.19-11-2013, directing the opposite parties to lay electric supply line temporarily to enable the complainant to raise his crop and irrigate his land and the Hon’ble Forum was also directed the opposite parties to report compliance in writing by 5-12-2013.  Thereafter, the complainant had received the copy of the order of the Hon’ble Forum on 23-11-2013 and he sent the said copies of the order to the opposite parties 1 to 4 on 24-11-2013 through registered post and those said copies were duly served to them on 5-12-2013, the said opposite parties filed a false memo without serving it to the complainant or his counsel.

 

(h)   It is further submitted by the complainant that in paras 12 to 15 of his complaint that the opposite parties are admitting their deficiency in service towards the complainant.  He had waited for the supply of electricity connection till 17-12-2013, he filed a memo on 18-12-2013 along with colour photos showing the opposite parties deficiency in service and filed another memo on 30-12-2013 stating the true facts of disobedience of order of the Hon’ble  Forum by the opposite parties 1 to 4.  They had clearly violated the order of Hon’ble Forum.  The, the complainant had filed I.A.No.2/2014 for the appointment of an advocate/commissioner to note down the topographical features of his lands.  The Hon’ble Forum was pleased to allowed.  I.A.No.2/2014 and appointed Commissioner to inspect the lands of the complainant.  The complainant had further narrated all the details in para 15 of his complaint.  The complainant had filed E.A.No.11/2014 under section 27 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 to punish them, for disobeying the order of the Hon’ble Forum.  He had   further narrated all the details in subsequent paras 16  and 17 of his complaint.

 

   (i) It is also further stated by the complainant in paras 16 and 17 of his complaint that the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the expenses for arranging generator and spent it and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony.  Due to violation of the order of the Hon’ble Forum by the opposite parties 1 to 4, the complainant could not raise his paddy crop in his total extent of 10.00 acres of land and incurred  loss because of willful negligence attitude of opposite parties and for they have to pay additional loss of Rs.2,82,000/- and in total the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay of Rs.6,67,000/- to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

      The opposite parties were resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dt.5-12-2013 of 1^st opposite party denying the allegations of the complainant.  Those allegations are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts.  A memo was filed that adoption of counter of 1^st opposite party by 2 to 4 of the opposite parties on the same day i.e.,       05-12-2013.  That is true that the transformer of the complainant was stolen by thieves and a report was lodged before police and with this respondent by him.  During the pendency of the police complaint by the complainant, this respondent arranged supply of electricity to the complainant’s Motors from other transformer.  This was accepted by the complainant and has been utilizing supply and raising crops in his fields.  The complainant is also paying electricity consumption charges to the opposite parties department.  The contentions of the complainant that he hired the generator for running his motors is false and it was invented story.  The neighbouring ryots are also knew about the electrical supply to the complainant’s motors.  As per orders of this Hon’ble Forum in I.A.No.136/2013 this respondent erected the 16 KV transformer in the place of stolen transformer.  Due to lack of stock of 16 KV transformers, this opposite party was not able to erect the transformer.  The complainant never incurred any loss due to lack of supply of transformer to his fields.

 

III.  The complainant had filed an affidavit as PW1 and affidavits of PW2 to 4 are also filed on 15-12-2014 and he had also filed their written arguments on 16-06-2015 before this Forum and the documents are marked on his behalf as Exs.A1 to A24 whereas the 1^st opposite party had also filed an affidavit through Mr.R.Sreenivasulu who is working as A.A.E., Bogolu, Nellore District and marked the documents as Exs.B1 to B7.  The opposite parties are also filed written arguments in support of their case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.    It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

 

         Sri V.Amarnath, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has also further submitted that the complainant after purchasing of the lands to the extent of Ac.10.00 cents and he applied for two electrical motor service connections and obtained permission from the first opposite party and deposited initially Rs.10,000/- for providing  each electrical motor service connection.  He has also applied for 16 KVA 3 PH DTR for his land and the first opposite party demanded the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.60,000/- and in turn, the first opposite party provided electricity connection. But, unfortunately the said electrical transformer was committed theft by unknown culprits on 24-11-2012 in the night hours and the same was informed by the watchman and later on the complainant gave a report on 25-11-2012 after theft of the transformer and since then there is no electricity supply from the opposite parties and it is well detailed information provided in the complaint and repetition of the same is hereby avoided.  The opposite parties are inspite of complainant’s communication about the theft of the transformer, never installed any transformers subsequently and in fact there is no power supply provided from the opposite parties.  After installation of transformer second time by the opposite parties, it was also stolen by unknown offenders and further contended that there is no power supply to the lands of the complainant.

 

        The said learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that  complainant had made his own arrangements by installing private generator on rental basis and paid Rs.1,80,000/- (under Ex.A20), to supply power to his land.  The opposite parties are after several requests and after a long period installed the electrical transformer but no service connection was provided to it and on repeated deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and it is evident from the record.    The opposite parties 1 to 4 are intentionally delayed the matter and the complainant sustained a heavy loss and complainant is subjected to severe mental worry and harassment and it is clearly explained in the complaint repeatedly against the officials of the opposite parties.  Finally, he has argued that the complainant is entitled to the amounts as prayed for and his complaint may be allowed with costs.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

 

  On the other hand, the learned counsel of the opposite parties Sri K.Padmanabhaiah has also vehemently argued that the contention of the complainant that he installed a private generator for running his motor is false and invented stories that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and due to lack of transformers, new transformer was not yet put up there. The complainant is using power from  other transformer.  The said learned counsel has filed the documents narrating the facts of the case in the affidavit of the opposite parties.  Finally, the said learned counsel as prayed that the Hon’ble Forum that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

Forum Findings and observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully.  Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence.

         The only question is whether the opposite parties 1 to 4 are provided electricity supply to the complainant is to be considered in the light of the submissions of the both parties.  It is crystal clear that both the transformers supplied and arranged by the opposite parties were committed theft. The question of supply of electricity to the lands of the complainant is doubtful continuously.  It is true that the complainant has arranged for himself a generator by paying rent of Rs.1,80,000/- under Ex.A20.  It is evident that the opposite parties are not provided electricity supply to the lands of the complainant inspite of his several requests and demands are made to the opposite parties.

 

(1)   The Forum has discussed at length, scanning the documentary and oral evidence adduced before it, how the bewildered farmer rushed from pillar to post for getting the electricity supply.  In fact, the power supply was agreed to at the initial stage subject to the approval of higher authorities and the complainant had approached the officers of opposite parties several times.  But all these efforts of him and attempts are failed. The confused complaint thereafter filed a case before us. Considering the turn of events it will be held that in decision of electricity officials are deliberate and the complainant was tacitly driven to a state to ruination by the inaction of opposite parties. It must be held that the attitude of the electricity officers                      (opposite parties 1 to 4) is found to be most unsympathetic and is inconsistent with the promises made by them to the complainant.  The entire episode is a sad commentary on the proverbial inaction of electrical officials. What was the reason of the non-supply of electricity at a longer period in this case?  There was no explanation from them to the complainant.  The electrical officials (opposite parties) is found to have given assurance to the complainant at the time of deposit of the said amounts to them the supply of electricity continuously, but deferred their ultimate decision on one plea or another.  The officials of electricity department people ought to have given a clear-cut reply as to what was done by the complainant to get an assured supply of electricity.  It was certainly aware that the complainant was actually dependent on agriculture and there was no way for him to get supply of electricity.  We are shocked at this horrible state of affairs and are of the opinion that the opposite parties should adequately compensate the complaint for their deficiency in service.  The case was contested by the opposite parties by filing the written objections by way of written version and affidavits.  At this stage the complainant was informed that according to opposite parties, he could get the electricity by depositing of Rs.80,000/-.  The complainant wanted to avail of this opportunity and deposited the aforesaid amount.  Obviously, the complainant proceeded with the matter with tacit assurance that his prayer for electric supply would be favorably considered by the officials of opposite parties.  The opposite parties 1 to 4 have not restored the electricity supply.

 

 

The relevant case-law:

 

1. Delay in supplying electricity connection for 10 months is deficiency in service – case New Punjab Cold storage Vs. Punjab State electricity Board, 2006 CTJ 772 (NC) = 2006(2) CPJ 299 = 2006(2) CPR 64(NC).
2. Supplying electrical energy is a service within meaning of Sec.2(i)(o) of the Act.(Karnataka Power Transmission corporation Ashok Iron works Private Limited) (III 2009 CPJ 5(SC) = AIR 2009 SC 1905)
3. A.P.Transco Vs.Eden Enclave Welfare Association, (2009 CTJ A.P.), A.P.State Commission held that Section 173-175 of the Electricity Act do not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forums as the provisions of the Electricity Act have overriding effect qua the provisions of any other law except the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Atomic Energy Act 1963 and Railways Act, 1989.
4. In Lucknow Development Authority Vs.M.K.Gupta, AIR 1994 (SC) 787  the Supreme Court examined the right and power of the National Commission to award exemplary damages and accountability of statutory authorities.  The Supreme Court considered various aspects of the Act and  then said that after having examined the wide reach of the Act and jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain complaints, the Commission under the Act was  entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him.  The Supreme Court also examined the question as to who was to bear the loss whether the instrumentality of the State or its functionary.  The Supreme Court said:

      “ When the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man.  It is the tax payer’s money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.  It is, therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding should be recorded carefully on material  and convincing circumstances and not lightly, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries”.

 

 5.  The failure of electricity board to supply electricity power which the consumer had applied for and he had deposited the amounts demanded by the board would amount to deficiency of service, 1999(I) CPR 597 West Bengal State Commission.

 

(6)  It is the duty of opposite party to take adequate precautions and arrange generators of sufficient capacity to meet contingency of failure of power especially when rent is charged – 1998 (1) CPR (157) A.P.

(7)  Incomplete and defective connection amounts to deficiency of service 1998(1) CPR 459 (A.P.). 

 

(8)  In the case of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums, the order/judgment must set out the points in dispute and on decision on those points supported by some reasons – 1995(1) CPR 832 (NC).

 

          It is to be remembered that the Supreme Court in the Judgment that is in Lucknow Development Authority Vs.M.K.Gupta AIR 1994 (SC) 787 was pleased to hold that “The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the Consumer to achieve the purpose of enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation” and also hold that “each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods or services and compensation.  The commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him”

 

     Almost an identical case to the facts of the present complaint, came up for a decision before Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, reported in (1) 2006 CPJ 485 and decided by it in the of TATA  Engineering & Locomotive Company Limited Vs.Chandrasekhar and others, where in it was held that the vehicle was purchased relying upon advertisement after seeing it in demonstration, not up to satisfaction and several defects not  rectified by the manufacturer, thereby deficiency in service proved and allowed the  complaint by the District Forum.

 

   1. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, “(2004) CPJ 12(SC) = 2004(5) SCC 65, the Supreme Court opined that under the Law, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction even in cases of services rendered by statutory and public authorities, holding:

“….

2. Consumer For a can award compensation as deemed proper, reasonable and not as per asking of complainant – 2011(2) CPR 282(NC).Each case has  to be judged on it’s own facts.  With regard to deficiency in service, the relevant aspect to be remembered that – To bring  home an allegation of deficiency in service, the element of willful action  (or as the case may be, in action) needs to be established and the onus of proof of such action / inaction lies on the complainant -  2010 (2) CPR 89 (NC).

 

3. Complainant must  prove his claim by reliable evidence – 2011 (3) CPR 449 (NC).

 

4.  One  who makes an allegation is required to prove it beyond doubt – 2011 (2) CPR 46 (NC).

 

5.   Consumer For a can award  compensation as deemed proper, reasonable   and not as per   asking of complainant – 2011 (2) CPR 282 (NC).

 

6.    Complaint is based on deficiency in service  must establish the same by leading cogent evidence  - 2011 (2) CPR 68 (NC).

 

7.     Compensation or damages can be  awarded only, if complainant has suffered loss or  damages due to negligence of manufacturer or service provider  - 2011 (2) CPR 101     (NC).

 

8.     Repeated deficiency in service of the service provider amounts to gross deficiency

in it’s service for which the consumer has to be adequately compensated by it which reported in  2010 C.T.J. (N.C.) 1159.

 

Several lapses on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 towards the complainant

(1)The first point is that at first instance the said electric transformer is fixed to the lands of the complainant, and thereafter it is lost due to theft in the month of November, 24-11-2012 from the lands of the complainant, then 2^nd new transformer is installed in the lands of the complainant and the same is also lost by way of theft by unknown offenders.  Duration (gap or delay) between installation of the said new transformer in the lands of the complainant is not at all explained by the Electricity department (opposite parties 1 to 4) for the reasons best known to them.

 

(2)How long and how much, the opposite parties collected electricity minimum charges from the complainant so far till now? Is it justified in the said circumstances of the case?

 

(3) It is almost the said complainant (ryot) is crying and weeping and also requesting the officials of opposite parties to arrange transformer alternatively.  What type of action opposite parties have taken in this regard since 24-11-2012 till now.  There is no explanation from them to say so for the reasons best known to them.

 

(4) Even the Forum’s interim order is not implemented by the officials of opposite parties 1 to 4 inspite of its direction to do so.  When they have implemented? And what is the reason for the delay for it by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them.

 

(5) Having collected Rs.80,000/- from ryot (the complainant as a deposit by the opposite parties 1 to 4 in 2008, what type of service is rendered to him? Who will bear the loss and injury of complainant?  How can the

 

 

 

complainant will cultivate his lands without energy and power from the opposite parties such a long delay.  According to opposite parties as per their counter and affidavit, the complainant is paying electricity charges regularly without any default.  Is it justified to collect such amounts as the case may be from the complainant by the opposite parties 1 to 4 since 2008 to till now.  There is no official correspondence by the opposite parties to anybody and in particular to the complainant at any time.

 

(6)The way in which the counter, affidavit and written arguments of the case, filed herein by the said counsel for opposite parties, speaks volumes of opposite parties attitude without official correspondence made by them, for the reasons best known to them.  It is absolutely irresponsible, laziness and negligence, thereby it amounts of deficiency in service.

     (7)  The complainant has kept his land vacant without raising any crop because of declaration of crop holiday by Govt. of A.P.  In addition to that there is no power supply to his lands and the opposite parties have not responded at all timely inspite of legal notices, remainders and Hon’ble Forum orders served on them as the case may be.  The contents of the complaint of the complainant and documents which are marked and unmarked, are put together, will speak volumes about deficiency in service and negligence of opposite parties 1 to 4.  It is not necessary much to place all the details of the circumstances of the case.  The complaint is itself, self-explanatory and it is evident that how the opposite parties 1 to 4 have harassed the ryot/little man/agriculturist, to suffer mental worry and he is put to irreparable loss, financially.  No more evidence is required to judge the case than available material on hand.  No doubt, the opposite parties have acted to some extent, where is the official correspondence on behalf of the opposite parties to any person in general or to the complainant in particular.  They have shown their a deaf ear and in their recklessness attitude, the complainant has suffered infinitive worry and beyond its imagination of any prudent person.  The commissioner and advocate who visited the agricultural fields of the complainant, submitted his report and it may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments of the case with regard to I.A.No.2/2014 and E.A.No.11/2014 and the Hon’ble Forum’s order is disobeyed by the opposite parties 1 to 4 and they have no respect of law and the inaction of the opposite parties, is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified according to law. These two points are held in favour of complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly. 

 

12. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite parties 1 to 4 to provide a new electrical 16KVA3PH DTR distribution transformer in good condition to the lands of the complainant and also ordering them (opposite parties 1 to 4) to pay Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty thousand only) lump sum amount towards generator rent, crop loss (for wettings from the months of February, 2013 till the May, 2013) and for other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the complainant so far and also he is entitled to get Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service and negligence of opposite parties 1 to 4 and also he is entitled to get Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, within one month from the date of the receipt of the order, failing which the complainant is also entitled to get interest @9% p.a., thereafter.  The point is answered in favour of the complainant, accordingly.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of August,              2015.    

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1         PW2         PW3       PW4

15-12-2014         15-12-2014         15-12-2014       15-12-2014

:         :         :       :

Kotha Venkateswarlu, S/o.Rosaiah, Hindu, Employee, aged about 54 years, residing at D.No.26-02-1580, Venkatareddynagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore-4, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.   Bikkam Varada Reddy, S/o.Venka Reddy, Hindu, Agricultural Coolie, aged about 50 years, residing at Chaitanya Nagar, Bogole Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.   Kotha Srinivasulu Hindu, agriculturist aged about 49 years, residing at Chaitanya, Bogole Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.   Bikkam Krishna Reddy, S/o.Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, Agriculturist, aged about 68 years, residing at Chaitanya Nagar, Bogole Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

11-05-2015

:

R.Sreenivasulu, S/o.Gopalaiah, aged about 53 years, Hindu, and working as A.A.E., Bogolu, Nellore District.

                                                                               

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	27-08-2012	:	Electricity charges payment receipts, numbering two for the motors of complainant bearing Nos.431 for Rs.2,374/- a nd  No.432 for Rs.2,375/-.
Ex.A2	27-11-2012	:	Photostat copy of the correspondence letter made by the Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation, Bogole to the S.H.O. of Kapparallatippa police Station, Bogole Mandal.
Ex.A3	-	:	Photostat copy of letter addressed by Junior Line man, Operation, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd., Bogole, to the Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd., Bogolu(M).
Ex.A4	-	:	Photostat copy of LT Sketch prepared by the Addl.Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.S.P.D.Ltd., Bogole, S.P.S.R.Nellore Dt.
Ex.A5           Ex.A6           Ex.A7   Ex.A8     Ex.A9   Ex.A10   Ex.A11     Ex.A12     Ex.A13   Ex.A14   Ex.A15     Ex.A16     Ex.A17   Ex.A18   Ex.A19   Ex.A20   Ex.A21     Ex.A22         Ex.A23     Ex.A24	-05-2013           01-06-2013           01-06-2013   06-05-2013     01-06-2013   -   17-06-2013     09-07-2013     -   -         03-06-2013     08-06-2013   -   -   16-05-2013   28-06-2013     01-10-2014         27-08-2014     27-03-2015	:           :           :   :     :   :   :     :     :   :         :     :   :   :   :   :     :         :     :	Photostat copy of the official correspondence letter sent by Additional Assistant Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.Ltd., Bogole to the S.H.O. of Kapparallatippa P.S.Bogole Mandal S.P.S.R.Nellore District,   Office copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainant through his advocate to the respondents 1st respondent and also copy sent to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of A.P.Hyderabad.     Registered Postal receipts (5 in nos.).   Legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite parties.   Registered Postal receipts (6 in nos.)   Acknowledgements (4 in nos.).   Electricity Receipts bearing Nos.313124 and 313125.     Receipt issued by Kiran Foto shop, Nellore bearing No.139   Photos (two in nos.)   C.Ds (two in nos.)   Returned registered cover along with acknowledgement.   Acknowledgements (two in nos.)     Registered post receipt (one in no.)   Photostat copy of pattadar pass book in patta No.318.   Acknowledgements (3 in nos.)   Cash receipt issued by Proprietor, Aman generator.   Receipt issued by R.K.Photo Express & Studio  bearing No.1056 for Rs.100/-.   Representation given to the Talluru Village Revenue Officer, Bogolu(M), SPSR Nellore District by the complainant.     Representation given to the Tahsildar, Bogolu (M), Talluru, SPSR Nellore District by the complainant.   Representation given to the APSPDCL, Addl. Asst. Engineer (o), Bogolu (M), SPSR Nellore District by the complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	-05-2013	:	Photostat copy of letter addressed by the 1st opposite party to the SHO, Bogole(M) along with LT Sketch.
Ex.B2     Ex.B3     Ex.B4       Ex.B5     Ex.B6     Ex.B7	27-11-2012     27-08-2012       28-03-2015          -          -	:     :     :       :     :     :	Photostat copy of letter addressed to the A.A.E., Thalluru by T.Brahmananda Rao.   Photostat copy of Police report given by A.A.E., to the SHO, Bogole (M).   Photostat copy of Electricity receipts bearing Nos.431 and 432 for Rs.2374/- and Rs.2375/- respectively (two in numbers).   Photostat copy of Police report given by the AAE to the SHO Bitragunta P.S.   Photostat copy of letter addressed to the Assistant Engineer by Assistant Lineman, Bogole.   Photostat copy of letter addressed by P.Sudhakara Rao to the Assistant Lineman.

 

          Id/-                                                                                         PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri V.Amarnath, Advocate, 1^st floor, Room No.3, S.S.Complex, Z.P.Office Centre, Leelamahal Road, Nellore-3.

 

2. Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, Sreerama Nilayam, 1^st Street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: