BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI D.SINGARA CHARY, B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT.
SMT.CH.A.LATHA KUMARI, M.A.,M.Sc.,LL.M.,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY, 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 55 OF 2012
Date of Filing : 13/09/2012
Date of Disposal: 31/07/2014
Between:
Dubbaka Shreedhar Reddy S/o Venkat Narsimha Reddy,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Farmer, H.No.1-78/1, Chowdampally
Village, Narkatpally Mandal, Nalgonda District-508 114.
…Complainant.
AND
- Additional Assistant Engineer, Sub-Station, APCPDCL
(AP Transco), Narkatpally, Nalgonda District.
- Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL,
Nalgonda-Rural, Sub-Station, Nalgonda.
- Divisional Engineer, Office of the Divisional Engineer Elect.
Operation, APCPDCL, Sub-Station, Nalgonda.
…Opposite Parties.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22/07/2014, in the presence of Sri Ch.Nagaraju, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri A.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI D.SINGARA CHARY, PRESIDENT
- The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for sustaining the loss due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties for not reconnecting the power supply and to direct them not to collect bills for power consumption.
Contd…2
- 2 -
- The facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant is an agriculturist having land in Survey Nos.84, 99, 208, 209, 54, 52 and 61 to the extent of 20 Acres in Chowdampally village. He was paying electricity bills regularly. In the neighbourhood of the lands, Brahmana Vellemla reservoir work was going on. In connection with the affairs of the said execution of the contractor, a vehicle belonging to the contractor dashed against the conductor and electric poles on 13/09/2009 due to which four poles were broken and the conductor had fallen on the ground with the result there was no power supply to the pumpsets of the Complainant. The Complainant brought the above incident and consequences thereof to the notice of the Opposite Parties by submitting several representations. The Opposite Parties paid deaf ear to the same. While things stood thus, on 15/10/2011 the fallen poles and conductor was stolen and the Police, Narkatpally registered a case in Cr.No.154/2010, issued F.I.R. and investigated into the matter. The Complainant also approached the contractor who was responsible for the incident, but he did not do any help. All efforts made by the Complainant to secure power supply have failed. He also made a complaint to the superior officials of the Opposite Parties for reconnection of the power supply. At that time, the work gained some momentum and grounding works to give power had started. After the theft of the poles, the A.A.E., Narkatpally had drawn four poles and conductor from the Electricity Stores at Nalgonda in the last week of August, 2011 and dumped the same at the camp of reservoir for stretch the conductor on the following day. The wire was erected on
Contd…3
- 3 -
two poles and the remaining two poles were left unattended. Again the Complainant made a complaint to the Divisional Engineer on 02/09/2011 to persue the matter, but there was no action. The Complainant also requested the contractor to supply the remaining two conductors for the remaining two poles, but he did remaining unfinished work and at last the power supply was restored on 10/09/2011, i.e. after two years it was disconnection due to the incident. The Opposite Parties are responsible for the negligence and the loss of yield caused to the Complainant for two years. Hence the complaint.
3. The Opposite Parties filed a written version stating that the Complainant should have approached the Consumer Grievance Cell and that this Forum has no jurisdiction. The Opposite Parties exhibited ignorance about the agricultural holding of the Complainant. It may be correct that Brahmana Vellemla Reservoir was under construction in the year 2009 and that the contractor’s vehicle had hit the conductor on 13/09/2009 falling down electric poles. It is however denied that the power supply was stopped to the pump sets of the Complainant. The Complainant never informed about the incident to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties came to know that the Complainant had discussed the matter with the contractor who was responsible for the incident regarding the electricity supply when the disruption had occurred and compromised the matter with him. It is for that reason that the Complainant kept quite for long time. It may be true that on 15/10/2011 the poles and conductor were stolen. The Complainant however did not bring the above fact to the notice of the
Contd…4
- 4 -
Opposite Parties. The Complainant had hand in glow with the contractor and such conclusion is possible from his allegations in the very complaint. The Complainant never made any efforts to inform the Opposite Parties. It is denied that the Complainant was without power for two years. There is no basis for the damages arrived at by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have purchasing power at Rs.10/- per unit and selling it at Rs.3/-, thus suffering loss of Rs.7/- per unit and was running into loss of millions of rupees. The Opposite Parties ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties filed their respective proof affidavits. While the Complainant marked Exs.A-1 to A-18, the Opposite Parties did not mark any documents.
5. The point for consideration is:
Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief?
6. POINT:
We shall first deal the question of jurisdiction. The Opposite Parties stated that the Complainant ought to have approached Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Hyderabad and when that remedy is available, he ought not to have approached this Forum. In a decision reported in Jarkhand State Electricity Board Vs.Anwar Ali [ (II) 2008 C.P.J.284) ] the Hon’ble National Commission held that the remedy provided Under Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the other remedies available under the Electricity Act and that jurisdiction of the Fora created under the Consumer Protection Act shall continue to have jurisdiction notwithstanding any other remedies
Contd…5
- 5 -
and that a consumer has option either to approach the Consumer Forum or Forum created under the Electricity Act. Therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
7. The fact that the Complainant is an agriculturist having about 20 acres of land is established through Ex.A-1 consisting of two pahanies wherein it is stated that he holds an extent of Acs.14.28 gts., in Sy.No.61 and an extent of Acs.5-11gts. In Sy.No.52/A. As seen from Ex.A-2, the Complainant has four different service connections bearing Nos.505030099, 5050300084, 5050300208 and 5050300209.
8. The case of the Complainant is that a truck belonging to the contractor who was appointed to execute Brahmana Vellemla Project work had dashed against electric poles falling down four electric poles and conductor. The Opposite Parties did not deny specifically and on the other hand, it is stated in the written version that it may be correct that the poles and conductor had fallen down on 13/09/2009 due to the dash of a vehicle belonging to the contractor. It is however denied that the power supply was stopped to the agricultural wells of the Complainant. The Complainant had filed a representation Ex.A-4, dated 22/10/2009 bringing to the notice of the Opposite Party No.1 about the incident where under the electric poles were fallen down on 13/09/2009 due to dash of a vehicle falling four electric poles resulting in disconnection of the power supply to his agricultural wells. It was followed by another similar representation Ex.A-3. These two documents abundantly establish the electric poles being fallen down in an accident. The Opposite Parties did not restore the power supply nor did they show that they made any efforts towards that end.
Contd…6
- 6 -
9. In the meantime, on 15/10/2010 there was theft of fallen down electric poles, the aluminum wires and conductor and Ex.A-5 copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.154/2010 of P.S.Narktpally registered on the complaint of the Complainant amply establishes the same. When this is pleaded, the Opposite Parties denied that the Complainant informed the same about the said theft. The Opposite Parties have Lineman, Assistant Engineers and much supervising staff whose duty is to go along the electric lines to find out whether there was any pilferage or theft of the electricity property. It is fallacy on the part of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant should report about the theft. They should have themselves detected the same. Even otherwise, the Complainant by filing Exs.A-6 and A-7 informed the Opposite Parties about the said theft and the plea of the Opposite Parties that the Complainant did not inform about the theft is totally false and cannot be accepted. Thus, it is established beyond doubt that the electric poles and conductor and aluminum wires had fallen down resulting in stoppage of power supply to the Complainant and that the said property was committed theft of. The chargesheet Ex.A-13 filed by the Police, Narkatpally also further strengthens the case of the Complainant in this regard. The representations of the Complainant Exs.A-9 and A-10 also yielded no result.
10. It is pleaded in the written version that the Complainant had discussion with the contractor who was responsible for the incident and he had compromised the matter. In what way the contractor could restore the power supply to the Complainant. It is only the Opposite Parties that could restore the power supply and not the contractor.
Contd…7
- 7 -
11. The power supply was restored on 04/10/2011 as seen from Ex.A-10, i.e. two years after the occurrence of the incident. During this season the Complainant was deprived of his cultivation and, therefore, he claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. It is however pleaded in the written version that the said figure is inflated and that the Complainant himself in a notice issued by him he had claimed damages of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Complainant, as already stated has Ac.20-00 Gts. of land. A perusal of the photographs Ex.A-17 shows that cotton was grown in the lands in question and it was at the yielding stage. If water supply is disconnected at that stage, the Complainant has to face lot of ordeals which one cannot imagine. Even though the Complainant had not scientifically made an estimation as to the actual yield, a cotton grower can easily get Rs.15,000/- profit per acre after excluding all expenses even by adopting conservative estimation. Thus, the Complainant had suffered loss of Rs.3,00,000/- per year and since for two years he was without power supply, the loss can be assessed at Rs.6,00,000/-.
12. Unfortunately, the Complainant in a letter addressed to the Opposite Parties under Ex.A-9 dated 19/12/2011 claimed damages of Rs.2,00,000/- and stated in the said letter in the last paragraph that the Opposite Parties are accountable for the said damages and that they should also not collect power consumption charges. Since the Complainant claimed only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the said notice, this Forum cannot award anything more than that amount towards loss suffered by the Complainant.
Contd…8
- 8 -
13. As far as the deficiency of services are concerned, this is a fit case where exemplary amount can be awarded under the said head. By not caring the request of the Complainant to restore power supply in spite of letters Exs.A-3 and A-4, the Opposite Parties had exhibited pronounced negligence to the comfort of an agriculturist who is projected by both State and Central Governments and as a matter of fact, it is also so, to be the back bone of the country and a bread winner for the nation. The country is at the stage pouring every benefit on the agriculturist but the Opposite Parties by their conduct are acting otherwise. The sluggish attitude on the part of the Opposite Parties had put the Complainant to irreparable mental agony he suffered is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable and prudent man. Therefore, we feel it proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of services. Both the amounts put together comes to Rs.3,00,000/-.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to deposit in this Forum, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) towards compensation for the loss sustained by the Complainant on account of deprivation to the power supply to his agricultural wells and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards deficiency of services with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till realization and costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) within one month from today.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 31st day of July, 2014.
FEMALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
Contd…9
- 9 -
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the complainant. Sri Ch.Praveen Kumar (OP-2),
filed his affidavit on behalf of
Opposite Parties.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt. Xerox copy of Pahani for the year 2009-10.
Ex.A-2 Dt.18/10/2011 Electricity Bills ( 4 in Nos.).
Ex.A-3 Dt. Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-4 Dt.22/10/2009 Xerox copy of complaint given by the
Complainant to the S.I. of Police, Narkatpally
Ex.A-5 Dt.16/10/2010 Xerox copy of F.I.R.
Ex.A-6 Dt.02/09/2011 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Opposite Party No.3.
Ex.A-7 Dt.02/09/2011 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Opposite Party No.3.
Ex.A-8 Dt.16/05/2011 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Superintending Engineer,
APCPDCL, Nalgonda.
Ex.A-9 Dt.19/12/2011 Notice issued by the Complainant to the
Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.
Ex.A-10 Dt.30/05/2011 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Superintending Engineer,
APCPDCL, Nalgonda.
Ex.A-11 Dt. CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10
in respect of Survey No.52/A
Ex.A-12 Dt. CC of Pahani for the year 2009-10
in respect of Survey No.61.
Ex.A-13 Dt.21/10/2010 Xerox copy of Chargesheet.
Ex.A-14 Dt.14/11/2013 Letter addressed by the Mandal Agricultural
Officer, Narkatpally to the Complainant.
Ex.A-15 Dt. Bunch of corresponding letters of the
Complainant and Information Officers of
the Opposite Parties with postal receipts.
Contd…10
- 10 -
Ex.A-16 Dt. Letter addressed by the Information Officer
containing 6 papers.
Ex.A-17 Dt. Bunch of Photographs.
Ex.A-18 Dt. Video C.D.
For Opposite Parties:
Nil.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri Ch.Nagaraju,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri A.Suresh Babu,
Advocate for Opposite Parties.