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.132/2009 Order dated this the 17th day of February 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Hutchegowda @ Mariyappa S/o Gyademayanna, R/o Dandiganahalli Village, Devalapura Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk. Rep. by Sri.D.H.Chennegowda S/o Hutchegowda @ Mariyappa, R/o 61/1, 2nd Cross, SBI Main Road, Hebbal, Mysore. (By Sri.S.L.Ramesh Babu., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Superintendent Engineer (E), CESK, Mandya Circle, Mandya. 2. The Executive Engineer (E), Divisional Office, CHESCOM, Nagamangala. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer (E), CESK Sub-division, CHESCOM, Nagamangala, Mandya District. (By Sri.A.Immanuel., Advocate) Date of complaint 11.11.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 04.12.2009 Date of order 17.02.2010 Total Period 2 Months 13 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties to provide a electric connection to the pumpset of the Complainant as per norms of the Opposite party Corporation within two months from this day and Opposite parties are directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties for direction to provide electric connection to the pumpset of the Complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. 2. The power of attorney holder of the Complainant has filed this complaint and he is the son of the Complainant. 3. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant owns 3 acres 23 guntas of dry land in Sy.No.89/01 in H.N.Kavalugrama, Nagamangala Taluk, and he has dug a borewell and using unauthorised connection of electricity he was growing crops. Since, the Government brought the scheme of Akrama Sakrama for the farmers who were unauthorisedly using the electricity. The Complainant applied for regularization under the scheme for 5 HP power supply to 2nd Opposite party. Thereafter, on 17.03.2009 the Section Officer of Devalapura, visited the spot and reported that the illegal connection of electricity to the borewel pumpset can be regularized and 2nd Opposite party sanctioned 5 H.P power supply and as per direction, he deposited penalty of Rs.5,000/- and another Rs.1,800/-, Rs.1,200/-, Rs.150/- and Rs.330/- and Rs.50/- totally Rs.8,530/- to the Opposite party Department. The Complainant has submitted to 2nd Opposite party, the report of the contractor for having effected wiring work and plan and executed the agreement and Opposite party has given insulation No.NIP-3925 dated 17.03.2009 to the IP set and forwarded to 1st Opposite party for approval and 1st Opposite party has approved the file and sent to 2nd Opposite party on 25.09.2009. In spite of all the procedure, the Opposite parties have not provided electric connection to the IP set of the Complainant. In spite of his letter dated 30.07.2009 and legal notice, the Opposite parties have not provided electric connection. The crop grown on his dried land and loss was caused to him and further without use of the pumpset, the motor went out of order getting rust and therefore, he sustained loss of Rs.40,000/- and has paid Rs.20,000/- to the contractor for wiring and it was deteriorated and due to the drying of crop without water, due to the negligence of the Opposite party service, sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and further, he was put to mental agony. On these grounds, he has sought for the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with direction to provide I.P. connection. 4. The 3rd Opposite party has filed version adopted by other Opposite parties. Admitting that the Complainant has been cultivating crops in his land by unauthorisedly using electricity from the transformer of the Opposite party by drawing an electrical line by using P.V.C. lead wire and that the Complainant himself opted to get the regularization of unauthorised use of electricity and paid initial deposit, his file is being processed stage by stage. An estimate has been prepared on 17.03.2009 at the cost of Rs.96,836/-. As per the estimate, 12 poles have to be provided and entire cost has to be met by the Opposite party. The work will be undertaken on priority basis i.e., first come first serve. Therefore, the application will come up for execution in a month or two as lot of materials are required to draw the electricity in the prescribed manner. After payment of initial amount, the Complainant was assigned an installation number NIP.3925 on 17.03.2009. Therefore, the Complainant become a Consumer already and his consumption is deemed to have been regularized, except for carrying out the supply line in the manner prescribed by the Corporation. The electricity supply was never disconnected and the question of disconnection does not arise, he was allowed to use as he was brought under the list of Consumer and is liable to pay charges. It is the option of the Complainant to use or not to use electricity in the method which he had adopted from the beginning adopted by the Complainant was byway of using a non-safety P.V.C., lead wire i.e., leading wire from the source to the pumpset. The pumpset, borewell, internal wiring all was carried out by himself. Now, in view of the requirements of this Opposite parties a licensed Contractor has to certify the internal wire and Opposite party has to carry out the drawing of the electricity line over the pole from the transformer. It is denied that crop has dried up since the supply of electricity was not disrupted by the Opposite party. The Complainant had grown jowar and harvested by utilizing water from borewell. The Complainant is not a serious agriculturist. If the pump has been damaged or spoiled due to non-use of pump, the Opposite party is not liable. Nobody asked him, to not use the pumpset. The process of regularization of use of electricity was already in force. The Complainant is misconceived. The Complainant is not entitled to compensation and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. During trial, the G.P.A. holder of the Complainant is examined and has produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.12. On behalf of the 3rd Opposite party and one witness are examined as R.W.1 & 2 and they have produced Ex.R.1 to R.4. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has failed to regularize the unauthorised electric connection as per the Corporation Scheme? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not providing electric connection? 3. Whether the Complainant sustained loss of crop and motor materials due to act of 3rd Opposite party? 4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. The undisputed facts are that the Complainant is the owner of Sy.No.89/1 measuring 3 acre 23 guntas dry land in H.N.Kavalugrama and cultivating lands using the borewell water with electricity drawn unauthorisedly and as per the Government Scheme, he applied for regularization for 5 HP electric supply as per Ex.C.3 & C.4 and after inspection, the Complainant was treated as Consumer and provided with consumer number NIP.3925 and he has deposited amounts prescribed to provide electric connection as per the norms of the Opposite party Corporation. Even, the estimate for providing electric connection to the pumpset of the Complainant with a cost of Rs.96,836/- to be borne out by Opposite parties and estimate was prepared on 17.03.2009 and 12 poles were already provided and the Complainant has executed the agreement with Opposite party as per Ex.C.10. Ex.C.9 is the report of the Electric Contractor with sketch of drawing electric wire. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant P.A. holder gave a letter as per Ex.C.11 on 30.07.2009 complaining of not providing electric connection and drying up of crop and sustained loss and even a legal notice as per Ex.C.12 was sent to the 1st & 3rd Opposite parties on 18.08.2009 are served. It is admitted fact that so far the electric line is not provided to the pumpset of the Complainant as per norms of the Opposite party Corporation. 10. The grievance of the Complainant is that in spite of all procedure intentionally the Opposite parties have failed to provide electric connection. But, the contention of the Opposite party is that the application of regularization of unauthorised consumption of electricity under the Akrama Sakrama Scheme had to be taken up on priority basis i.e., first come first serve and 12 poles have to be installed to provide electric connection to the Complainant pumpset and the number of materials are required and within two months, the work would be executed. Another grievance of the Complainant is that Junior Engineer of Opposite party Corporation while inspecting the pumpset, told the Complainant to remove connection saying regular connection will be provided and accordingly in the month of March 2009, he disconnected the electric connection and the crop grown in the land dried up due to non-supply of water from borewell and therefore, he has suffered loss of Rs.1,00,000/- and further, the materials used for wiring are deteriorated causing loss of Rs.20,000/- and even the pumpset motor is getting rust and requires Rs.20,000/- for repairs and for this, the Opposite party is liable. But, the Opposite party has denied on the ground that the Complainant was using the electricity unauthorisedly and there is no question of disconnection and the Complainant was free to use the electricity as he was using electricity unauthorisedly and has not grown crop like, Ragi and Onion as per his evidence. But, he had grown jowar crop and harvested and Complainant has not sustained any loss on account of the delay in drawing line with poles as per the norms of the Opposite party Corporation. 11. Now, if we analyse the evidence produced by both sides, it is clear that the Complainant has been treated as a Consumer by Opposite party Corporation, on his application with initial deposit as per the Government Scheme to regularize the unauthorised electric connection and estimate was prepared and 12 poles have to be fixed to draw the electric wiring from the transformer. Naturally, there will be so many applicants for regularization of electric supply and on seniority basis, the work has to be taken up by Opposite party. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.3 & R.4 the list of farmers who have applied for regularization of electric supply. According to the Opposite party, Ex.R.3 is the list of farmers to whom electricity supply had been regularized providing electric line as per the norms of the Opposite party Corporation and Ex.R.4 is the list of farmers who are to be provided electric connection as per the procedure of the Opposite party Corporation. Though according to the evidence, one farmer whose Consumer number is later to the Complainant is included in the list Ex.R.3, but according to the Opposite party evidence the pumpset of some farmers were already having basic requirements of electric connection and therefore, they are regularized according to the norms as per Ex.R.3. But, in case of the farmers shown in Ex.R.4, they are to be provided with basic infrastructure requirements for providing electric connection. It is to be seen that the complaint was filed on 11.11.2009 and the Opposite parties have filed version on 04.01.2010 and as per their version, the electric line as per the norms of the Opposite party Corporation will be completed within a month or two. But, there is no evidence that at what stage the work is in progress and what more time is required to complete the process to provide electric connection as per the norms. Therefore, there is some delay in carrying out the work by the Opposite party and they have committed deficiency in service by causing delay to some extent for regularizing the electric connection as per the norms of Opposite party Corporation. 12. Though, the Complainant case is that he had grown crops and due to non-supply of electric supply, the crop dried up for not supplying water in the absence of electricity and he has sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/-, it is pertinent to note that in the petition given by the Complainant as per Ex.C.11 and even legal notice Ex.C.12 and even in the complaint, he has not whispered the nature of crops grown and expected yield and the rate of the crop. Only in the evidence, the Complainant has deposed that had grown ragi in 2 acres and onion in 20 guntas. But, the Complainant has not produced any copy of the RTC to show the nature of crops grown. Even, the neighbours affidavit is not filed. On the other hand according to the Opposite party witness R.W.2, Complainant had grown jowar and has harvested the crop. Further, it is doubtful to accept the evidence of the Complainant that he stopped the use of electricity when a Junior Engineer told that electricity would be provided fixing the electric poles. Admittedly, he was unauthorisedly connected electricity to his pumpset and there is no disconnection of electricity by the Opposite party and he was free to use electricity according to his convenience unauthorisedly, because already consumer number was given and Complainant is aware that the process by Opposite party will take time to provide electric poles and draw electric lines to the pumpset of the Complainant. Therefore, we cannot attribute any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party in use of electricity by Complainant for growing crop as he likes. There is no question of responsibility of the Opposite party for loss of crop and further, there is no question of deterioration of electric wires drawn by the contractor and further, the Complainant is responsible for any damage to the motor if he does not use properly using electricity. Even, the Complainant has not filed affidavit of any neigbourer that the Complainant has disconnected the P.V.C. open electric wire drawn from the electric line to the pumpset of the Complainant. Therefore, we cannot attribute any deficiency in service for the alleged loss of crop or any monitory loss and therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to any compensation as sought for. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties to provide a electric connection to the pumpset of the Complainant as per norms of the Opposite party Corporation within two months from this day and Opposite parties are directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 17th day of February 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
