By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member. Complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. Brief of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer having electric connection vide consumer No.6256 of the Electrical Major Section, Kalpetta, under the Agricultural Scheme. The connection was obtained exclusively for the agricultural purpose and the complainant is operating a Motor and pump in order to irrigate his various cultivation from time to time. In September 2003 the complainant cultivated plantains in 1.00 Acre of land. As usual he had looked after the Contd.....2) 2 plantains cultivated by him very well by irrigation properly by using the pump set and also by timely application of the fertilizers to get a good yield. The pump set is highly essential to irrigate the cultivation from the near by 'Thodu'. The total number of plantains are approximately 1200, while so the lineman of the 1st opposite party has disconnected the electricity to the pump set on 10.12.2003. The complainant requested the line man not to disconnect the electricity. But the line man stated that I am doing my work as per the direction given by the 1st opposite party. The plantains were 4 months old which need irrigation at that time. 2. There after the complainant contacted 1st opposite party and requested him to reconnect the electricity. But he was very adamant towards the complainant and threatened him that they will not give connection in the near future. There after the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party. As per the direction of 2nd opposite party, the connection to the pump set was restored on 18.1.2004. Meanwhile the cultivation of plantation destructed partly due to lack of irrigation and the plantain remained without adequate growth. Till the date of disconnection the complainant has spent his entire time and a lot of money and given his utmost attention to the plantains. The act of the opposite parties are in gross negligent manner and their act constitutes deficiency in service on their part for which they are liable to compensate the complainant. The total life span of plantains are 10 months and in which the most crucial time is 3 to 6 months and there is no proper irrigation of manuring during these period, the entire hard work became fruitless. Since the opposite parties disconnected the electricity without any reason in crucial time which determine the fate of cultivation itself affected the entire cultivation in vigorous manner and badly affected the crop. Hence the complainant entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh) as compensation to the complainant for loss sustained to him due to destruction of plantains. (2) to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony. (3) To grant cost of this complaint. 3. 3. The opposite parties entered in to appearance and filed version. In the version they admitted that the service connection No. 6256 is registered in the name of the petitioner for agricultural purpose. Further they stated that the current charge against the consumer was due from 5/2000 hence the service connection was disconnected on 6.12.03 as per rules. KSEB has the right to disconnect the service connection in respect of defaulted consumer under section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act. The service connection was reconnected on 16.1.2004 on the basis of a letter from the Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan Muttil requesting to reconnect the supply to the petitioner, assuring that the arrear current charges would be paid by the Krishi Bhavan as and when the allotment, of funds is received. The service connection remained disconnected only for about 41 days. If the plantain cultivation of the petitioner was destroyed, that might be due to the severe drought which is an act of the God. The opposite parties have acted only as per rules and hence not at all responsible for any kind of loss said to be sustained by the petitioner. There is no deficiency in service or negligent act on part of this opposite parties. Hence dismiss this petition with no cost. 4. The points to be considered are as follows. 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost. 5. Point No.1: To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the Learned Commissioner was examined as PW2. Document No.1 to 4 were marked. The commission report marked as Ext. C1. PW1 gave evidence supporting his complaint. Ext. A1 is a photocopy of circular No. plg. Com 3443/97 date: 2.1.2001 issued Board Secretariat, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvanathapuram. Chief Engineer, (Commercial and Tariff, ) KSEB signed in the circular. In the circular it is mentioned that the electric connections to all paddy cultivators irrespective of the extent of land holdings and other Contd.....4) 4. cultivators whose land holdings do not exceed two Hectares, shall not be disconnected until further order as they are eligible for free supply of electricity as per B.O. No.499/99 (Plg. Com. 3443/97) date 25.2.99 even if their electricity charges are not remitted by the Krishi Bhavan. Copy of the above circular communicated to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle with direction to communicate the circular to all the field officers immediately. Ext. A2 and Ext. A3 are the letters issued by agriculture Department top officials regarding disconnection of electricity to the Agriculturists. Ext. A4 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant to 1st opposite party on 3.1.2004. In the complaint he stated that his electric connection is disconnected and requested to take steps for reconnection of the electric supply which is used only for agriculture purpose. On the side of opposite party, 1st opposite party is examined as OPW 1. Ext. B1 and B2 marked. Ext. B1 is the copy of letter sent by Agriculture officer Krishi Bhavan Muttil to 1st opposite party requesting him to reconnect the disconnected electric supply to the complainant. Ext. B2 is the copy of consumer's Bi monthly Meter Reading Register including the complainant, maintained by the 1st opposite party. As per the above register electric consumption of the complainant is 176 unit as on 12.11.02, 10.1.03 and 8.5.03. There after it is noted in the electricity bill that the Door locked. 6. It is undisputed that the complainant is a consumer under 1st opposite party vide consumer No.6256. The electric connection is for agriculture purpose. The complainant is having about 2 Acres of land. It is admitted that the electric current charge is paid by the Krishi Bhavan, Muttil as per the direction of the Government. It is admitted that the electric connection of the complainant is disconnected by 1st opposite party and reconnected. But there is a dispute regarding date of disconnection and reconnection. According to the opposite party they disconnected the electricity on 6.12.2003 and reconnected on 16.1.04 (41days). But according to the complainant opposite party disconnected the electric connection on 10.12.03 and reconnected on 18.1.2004, (39days). Whether the disconnection by 1st opposite party is Contd....5) 5 justifiable or not . From Ext. A1 shows that the Government and the KSEB issued directions to the KSEB authorities that the electric connections to the cultivators shall not be disconnected until further orders. Opposite party have no case that the complainant is holding more than 2 Hectors of land. Their contention is that they disconnected the supply due to non payment of electric current charge by the complainant. It is clear from Ext. A1 that the government and KSE Board has no objection in supplying free electric energy to the cultivators. They have issued direction to the board staff not to disconnect the energy to the Agriculturists. In spite of this direction is in existence, disconnection was done by Opposiste party. We relied the decision of the Hon. Apex court in leading case titled as Leknow development Authority Vs. M.K. Guptha 1993 CTJ 929-(S.C). In the above case Hon. Apex Court observed as here under. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to the society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more changing than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaint and fighting succeeds to the preassure of undesirable functioning in officers instead of standing against it. Therefore, the owner of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensate the individuals satisfies him personally but helps in ensuing social evil. It may result in improving the work enthrive and help in changing the outlook. One of the reason for this appears to be development of law, which, apart, from other factors succeeded in keeping a salutary check on the functioning in Government or Semi government officers by holding the officers personally responsible for their capricious or even ultra virus action resulting in injury or loss to a citizen awarding damages against them. Similarly, in case titled as Ghaziabad Development Authority V Balbir Singh, 2004 CTJ-605 Contd.....6) 6 (Sc)(C P ) it was explicitly held by Hon. Apex Court that when the court directs payment of damages or compensation against the state, the ultimate sufferer is common man. It is the tax payers money which is paid for in action of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with the law. It is, therefore, necessary that commission when it is satisfied that the complaint is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, which finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly, them it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but it recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behavior by directing it proportionately where there are more than one function arise. The same decision is followed by Apex Court in MC Mehtha Vs. Union of India 2006 Sec.-P-399. 7. The aforesaid law settled by Supreme Court is followed by National Commission in the cases filed as (1) Smt. Pushpa Jain Vs.Hindu 2004 CTJ 48(CP), (2) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Koramutta Pullana, 2006 CTJ (CP) and (3) Chandrakant Mahadev Kadam Vs. Asst Engineer MSEB, At Padi and others National Commission and supreme Court on consumer cases 1986-2005-Part VI Page 9081. 8. In view of the afore stated preposition of law, we come to the conclusion that there is serious deficiency in service on the side of the 1st opposite party and his subordinates. Hence point No.1 is found in favor of the complainant. 9. .Point No.2: It is admitted by the opposite party that they disconnected the service connection to the complainant for 41 days ie. from 6.12.03 to 16.1.04. The climate in Wayanad is hot during that period. The complainant could not water the plantains during this period. That causes damages to the complainant . As per the commission report the Contd....7) 7 complainant has actually losses an amount of Rs.21,400/- (Rupees twenty one thousand four hundred only) as expense for cultivation and an amount of Rs.44,200/- (Rupees Forty four thousand two hundred only) as his profit. It is sure that if the service connection is disconnected the complainant had made some other arrangements to water the plantation. Some costs has to be paid to the workers. Two workers manpower is sufficient to watering the plantains. Hence the complainant has lost Rs.6150/- towards paying costs to the workers. We are granting Rs.500/- as costs. Hence the complainant is entitled to get Rs.6150/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs Total Rs.6650) with 10% interest from date of filing the complaint till the payment is made. The opposite parties are directed to recover the amount from the erring officers ie. the 1st opposite party, Asst. Engineer and the lineman who disconnected the service connection, since they are personally liable for the disconnection. Hence point No.2 decided in favor of the complainant. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.6150/- (Rupees Six thousand one hundred and fifty only) as compensation and Rs.500/-(Five hundred only) as cost of this complainant to the complainant along with 10% interest of the above said amount (Rs.6,650/-Rupees Six thousand six hundred and fifty only) from, the date of filing the petition till the payment is made. The opposite parties are also directed to recover the amount from the erring officers ie. the 1st opposite party, then Asst. Engineer and the lineman who is disconnected the service since they are personally liable for the disconnection. The order is to be complied with in 30 days of this order. Pronounced in open Forum in the day of 28th June 2008. Contd....8) 8. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: I Sd/- MEMBER: II Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX: Witness examined for complainant: PW1 Sebastian Complainant PW2 P.P. Mathew Agriculture Officer. Witness examined for Opposite parties OPW1 Sadhanandan Exe. Engineer. Exhibits marked for complainant. A1 copy of circular Dt. 24.9.04 A2 Copy of circular issued by the Principal Agricultural Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. A3 Copy of circular issued by under secretary, Agricultural Department A4 Copy of cocmplaint C1 Commission report Exhibits marked for opposite parties. B1 Copy of letter sent by agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Muttil. B2 Copy of consumer's Bi monthly Meter reading register.
