DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.9 of 2016
1. Kartika Sahu, S/o. Late Panibudi Sahu, aged about 60 years,
2. Jayakrushna Padhan, S/o. Guna Padhan, aged about 53 years,
3. Abdhut Sahu, S/o. Late Chakradhar Sahu, aged about 62 years,
4. Bhimsen Sahu, S/o. Late Chakradhar, aged about 60 years,
5. Patria Gadtia S/o. Late Narasingha Gadtia, aged about 62 years,
6. Chhatria Gadtia, S/o. Late Narasingha Gadtia, aged about 55 years,
7. Gopinath Padhan, S/o. late Chakradhar, aged about 61 years,
8. Sarpanch Sahu, S/o.Late Hala Sahu, aged about 60 years,
9. Samaru Sahu, S/o.Late Hala Sahu, aged about 58 years,
10. Chaitu Sahu, S/o.Late Hala Sahu, aged about 50 years,
11. Sukru Sahu, S/o.Late Hala Sahu, aged about 45 years,
12. Sanat Padhan, S/o. Lingaraj Padhan, aged about 53 years,
13. Santosh Padhan, S/o. Late Rama Padhan, aged about 48 years,
14. Dillip Padhan, S/o. Late Dasarath Padhan, aged about 40 years,
15. Ramesh Padhan, S/o. Late Dasarath Padhan, aged about 25 years,
16. Radheshyam Padhan, S/o. late Chakradhar Padhan, aged about 70 years,
17. Premaraj Paahdn, S/o. Late Hari Padhan, aged about 65 years,
18. Makardhwaj Sahu, S/o. Late Brusabha Sahu, aged about 63 years,
19. Balaram Padhan, S/o. Guna Padhan, aged about 50 years,
20. Sripati Bariha, S/o. Late Gopi Bariha, aged about 60 years,
21. Banamali Bagh, S/o. Bipin Bagh, aged about 47 years,
All Occupation – Cultivation, R/o. village - Ainlasari, P.O. Samalaichuan, P.S. Dunguripali, District – Sonepur.
………….. Complainants
Vrs.
1. The State of Odisha, represented by the Collector, Sonepur, At/P.O./P.S./District – Sonepur
2. The Western Electricity Supply Company of Odisha Ltd. Represented by the Executive Engineer, S & D Sonepur, At/P.O./P.S./District - Sonepur
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Sri S.S.Purohit
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 ………. Sri B.K.Dash
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 ………. Sri B.K.Bishi
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.29.01.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
The complainants 21 in number have filed this complaint case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the State of Odisha & WESCO.
-: 2 :-
Bereft of unnecessary details the complainants case is described below.
The complainants are cultivators and they are members of Sri Sri Anukul Chandra Pani Panchayat under Dunguripali Block of Subarnapur District. The complainants ever that O.P. No.2 is dealing with supply of electricity for profit and as such he comes within the purview of consumer protection Act. O.P. No.1 has permitted the O.P. No.2 to proceed with business of electricity and earn profit. So this O.P. is also liable under the Consumer Protection Act.
It is alleged that on the persuasion of O.P. No.2 and its agency the complainants and other villagers formed the Pani Panchayat. The O.P. No.2 also assured to supply uninterrupted electricity to the L.I. point of the complainants.
On 18.1.2008 agreement was entered into between the O.P. No.2 representing the WESCO and complainant No.1 representing the other complainants. The complainants were paying their electricity dues regularly.
The complainants aver on the assurance of the O.P. No.2 and it’s officers they undertook the paddy cultivation work in Ac.36.193 dec. of land during dalua season. But the entire paddy plants suffered complete damage as due to non supply of required voltage of electricity the water pumps did not lifted water. The complainants have complained about it to the O.Ps. But they have not responded, complainants allege that it is the responsibility of the O.P. No.2 and its officers to supply proper voltage of electricity.
The complainants have given pleaders notice to both the O.Ps. The O.P. No.1 has intimated the O.P. No.2 to take necessary action, but the O.P. No.2 did not respond to it. Hence the complainants allege that both the O.Ps. or in the alternative the O.P. No.2 is liable for the damages sustained by the complainants.
Hence the complainants have filed this complaint case alleging that the total damage of paddy suffered by them comes to Rs.9,56,852.00. They have prayed that the O.Ps. or in the alternative the O.P. No.2 be directed to give this amount to the complainant.
The O.Ps. have filed version in this case. The O.P. No.1 allege that he is not a necessary party in this case and this fact has also been admitted by O.P. No.2 in his version. This O.P. further alleges that he has not given any permission to the O.P. No.1 to proceed
-: 3 :-
with the business of electricity and earn profit from the consumer. This O.P. further avers that vide his letter No.5762 dt.28.5.2016 through A.D.M., Subarnapur he has intimated the Executive Engineer, SED, WESCO to take necessary action on the pleader notice. Therefore he avers that he has not committed any deficiency of service.
The O.P. No.2 in his version has denied the fact that he is earning profit through business. He has also averred that the O.P. No.1 is not a necessary party in this case. This O.P. also alleges that no officials of WESCO has persuaded the complainants to take electricity connection from them. Rather for their own need the complainants have taken electricity connection. This O.P. also has denied any kind of assurance to the cultivators. The O.P. further avers that so far as stoppage of water pump and damages of crops is concerned not even a single complaint except a belated pleader notice has been received in any of the office of WESCO. They allege that far back a complain of interrupted supply was received which was attended by purning of trees and maintenance of line. This O.P. also alleges that the allegation of improper supply and low voltage is not specific. The quantum of voltage also depends on the feasibility and ratio of supply prevailing over the system through out the State. They allege that complete damage of crop is not attributable to the supply of electricity, but it also depends on other factors.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on records. On the interse pleading of the parties and submissions of learned counsel during hearing the moot question that requires adjudication by the forum is :
“ Have the O.Ps. committed deficiency of service ? ”
So far as O.P. No.1 is concerned we find that nothing has been paid by the complainants to hire its services. There is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that this O.P. has permitted the O.P. No.2 to proceed with electricity business and earn profit. At least no such document has been filed before us. We also find that it is not the responsibility of this O.P. to supply proper voltage of electricity. Rather it is the responsibility and duty of WESCO. After getting the pleader notice this O.P. has promptly intimated the A.D.M. to look into the matter. So we have not found any deficiency of service on it’s part and this O.P. is freed from the liability.
-: 4 :-
The O.P. No.2 in his version has stated that WESCO is not doing electricity business for profit. That is not relevant for the adjudication of this case. It is to be seen whether there has been deficiency of service on the part of this O.P. or not. This O.P. in para 6 of his version has submitted that not even a single complaint except a belated notice has been received in any of the office of this O.P. We have perused the documents filed by the complainants. The complainants have written grievance petiti0on to Sectional Officer, Electrical Cherupali and copy of the same has been re3cieved by S.D.O. Electrical, Binka on 20.4.2016 copy of the same has also been received in the office of Executive Engineer WESCO Subarnapur on the same date. So the plea of this O.P. regarding non receipt of complaint from the complainants is false. In the said para 6 of their version the O.P. No.2 has mentioned that far back (date not mentioned) a complain of interrupted supply was received which was duly attended by purning of trees and maintenance of line. But no evidence has been filed by the O.P. No.2 in this connection. However the affidavit of Srikanta Sai has been filed in this case from the side of O.P. No.2. In that affidavit he has stated that the said village is under his jurisdiction. He has also stated that lineman Sri Dhanjaya Padhan has been posted on the supply system of the said village. He has also mentioned that feasibility voltage and supply was being maintained during the said period. It is common knowledge that lineman are the persons entrusted in the field level to look into supply of electricity in the village level. So in the instant case the said Dhananjay Padhan was the best person to depose regarding supply of electricity to the L.I. point of the complainants. But neither he has been examined nor his affidavit has been filed in this case. In the aforesaid scenario the affidavit of Srikanta Sai does not carry much weight.
On the other hand the complainants have filed the list given by the Secretary Samlaichuan PACS. Upon perusal of the same we find that upon Ac.27.416 dec. of land the complaints have not sold any paddy and upon Ac.4.382 dec. of land farmers card has not been issued. Secretary PACS who is a public servant must not have given a false statement.
Strict proof of allegation is not required in a consumer case as it is required in a criminal case. Decision in consumer cases can be based on preponderance of probabilities. In the wake of our aforesaid discussion we are inclined to believe that crop of the complainants suffered loss due to non lifting of water pump of their L.I. point as a result of low voltage.
-: 5 :-
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainants are entitled. The complainants have claimed Rs.9,56, 852.00 towards compensation for crop damage. The learned counsel for O.P. No.2 vehemently contended that there are several causes which may lead to damage of crops. We agree with him. But certainly non lifting of water by the water pump due to low voltage is one of the causes for the same and it is the main cause. We have perused the Xerox copies of decisions filed by the Advocate for O.P. No.2 which cannot be made applicable to this case.
However, taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for O.P. No.2 we are of the considered view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- per acre towards compensation in this case would meet the ends of justice. The complainants have cultivated Ac.36.193 dec. during the relevant period and as such they are entitled to Rs.3,61,930/- as compensation for damages of their crop. They are also entitled to Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation. We direct the O.P. No.2 to pay this amount to the complainants within one month from the date of order.
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
The O.P. No.2 shall pay to the complainants Rs.3,64,930/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Four thousands Nine hundred and Thirty) only within one month from the date of this order.
Dated the 29th January 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.29.01.2018 Dt.29.01.2018 Dt.29.01.2018
