BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.119/2008 Order dated this the 30th day of December 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Kumara S/o Lingaiah @ Kenchaiah, R/o Bilidegalu Village, Keragodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S Assistant Engineer (Elecl.) Rural Sub-Division to SESC Keragodu, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. (EXPARTE) Date of complaint 06.11.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 20.11.2008 Date of order 30.12.2008 Total Period 1 Month 10 Days Result The complaint is allowed exparte, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.250/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for compensation of Rs.50,000/- alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite party. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is having electricity connection through IP No.91 (BLIP No.91) to his lands at Sy.No.155/2 and Sy.No.127 totally measuring 5 acres from the Opposite party. The complainant was raising sugar cane and other crops for his livelihood and providing water supply through the OP set. Some miscreants committed theft of electric pole through which line has been drawn to the OP set of the complainant. So, he gave an application to the Opposite party on 29.07.2008 regarding theft of electricity line and to provide new pole giving connection to IP set, but the Opposite party did not erect electric pole for nearly 3 months. Due to this negligence, the complainant could not supply water to the crops and the crops withered and caused irreparable loss to the complainant and the complainant has been put to loss of investment of Rs.50,000/- for raising crops. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the Opposite party has not paid the compensation in spite of legal notice dated 19.09.2008. 3. The notice was served on the Opposite party by registered post, but the Opposite party has remained exparte. Thereafter, the complainant has filed the affidavit and documents Ex.C.1 to C.10 and examined one witness. 4. We have heard the counsel for complainant. 5. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2) Whether the complainant has sustained loss? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? 6. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 7. To show that the complainant is having lands, the complainant has produced the RTC copies Ex.C.2 to C.7 and it proves he owns nearly 5 acres of land at Bilidegalu Village and in the RTC itself source of water is mentioned as pump set. According to the complainant, he has planted a sugar cane crop seeds in July 2008, using IP set water and had spent Rs.50,000/- for cultivation and plantation, but on 29.07.2008, the electric pole from which the electric line drawn to the IP set of the complainant was stolen and complainant informed the said matter to the Opposite party and inspite of it the Opposite party did not erect new electric pole to provide connection to the IP set of the complainant and therefore, due to non-supply of water sugar cane crop dried. The complainant has filed affidavit of witness and he has sworn that the complainant had raised sugar cane crop and dried due to non-supply of water, since there was no electric connection to the OP set of the complainant on account of theft of the electric pole. The complainant has produced Ex.C.10 dated 29.07.2008 to prove that he has given application to the Opposite party about the theft of electric pole and Ex.C.9 proves that the Opposite party had filed a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Keragodu. The complainant has also produced Ex.C.1 a letter to the complainant by the Opposite party, stating that the police have not registered the complaint, on the ground the stolen pole again was brought and kept near that place and he would treat as a broken pole and within a week they will erect new pole. So, it is amply proved that the electric pole giving connection to the IP set of the complainant was stolen and connection was disrupted to the IP set of the complainant and in spite of application, the Opposite party failed to erect a new pole within time. Even Opposite party has not appeared before the Forum to show as to what action was taken about the errection of the pole providing connection to the IP set of the complainant. The evidence discloses that the Opposite party has not at all erected the pole to give connection to the IP set of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has proved that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 8. The complainant has pleaded and deposed and also witness that the complainant had planted sugar cane seeds and the sugar cane crop dried for non-supply of water. Further, the complainant has deposed that he had invested Rs.50,000/- for planting the sugar cane seeds and cultivation and due to drying of crops he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/-. Though the complainant has not given details how much seeds sets used per acre and what is the rate of seeds and what is the cost of manure spent and the cost of labour, but considering the present cost of sugar cane seeds sets, labour charges and manure cost, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.6,000/- per acre and therefore for 5 acres as per RTC, the complainant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- and the Opposite party is liable to pay compensation. 9. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed exparte, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.250/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of December 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
