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.6/2009 Order dated this the 15th day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Siddaiah S/o Late Siddaiah @ Doddahyda, R/o Vijayanagara Layout, Hosaholalu Village, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Dhananjaya V.S., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. 2. The Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, Pandavapura Division, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.V.Sheshadri., Advocate) Date of complaint 17.01.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 24.01.2009 Date of order 15.04.2009 Total Period 2 Month 21 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and to provide electric connection to the IP set of the complainant by drawing electric line from the electric pole erected on the land of Sharadamma with assistance of the Police, if necessary, within two months from this date. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite parties for a direction to the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest and also to provide electrical connection. 2. The case of the complainant is that he has obtained electric supply to his pump set, installed in his garden land in Sy.No.68 and the connection number is H.I.P. 58(A). The complainant was regular in paying electric charges. The Opposite party in the guise of replacing the pole by removing the old pole, unnecessarily disconnected the electric supply about 4 months back. Though the complainant approached they went on giving false assurance. On 10.09.2008, the complainant submitted a petition, but there was no response and coming to know that the Opposite party is not providing electric supply in collusion with the persons inimical to the complainant, he lodged a complaint to K.R.Pet Police on 10.09.2008, but there was no result. Then on 06.10.2008, he gave a complaint to the 2nd Opposite party against 1st Opposite party, but they did not respond. Then, he got issued a legal notice dated 08.12.2008, but there was no reply, or electric supply and have acted negligently and on account of this, the crops have dried in the land and caused loss. Therefore, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and therefore, the present complaint is filed for the said reliefs. 3. The notices were served on 1st & 2nd Opposite parties and they have filed common version, contending that the electric supply to the I.P.Set is free of cost as per Government Policy and hence the complainant is not a Consumer. The Opposite party does not admit that complainant raised the crops like Coconut, Arecanut, Banana and Mango in 1 acre 21 guntas. Since, the electric pole wherein wire was connected to I.P.Set of the complainant was in poor condition, likely to fall down which causes harm to the public, a new pole was installed in the place of old damaged pole. At that time, the neighbouring people of the complainant raised an objection for providing electric connection through cable complaining electric grounding to their houses. On this background, the Opposite party tried to install new pole to provide electric supply to the I.P. Set. While doing so, Smt.Sharadamma, the owner of the land issued a legal notice dated 05.12.2008 objecting for the installation of pole on her land. In order to facilitate the electric supply to the complainant, a reply notice was issued on 24.12.2008. For the legal notice of the complainant, a reply was issued. Hence, there is no deficiency of service. Regarding obstruction by the neighbouring persons, a police complaint was also lodged. The utilization of underground for cable connection for electric supply is applicable to City Municipal Area and Metro Politen City Areas and not to the Rural Areas. In order to give electric connection through underground in rural areas, the consumer shall execute a separate agreement so that its maintenance shall be borne by the Consumer and the Corporation is not at all liable for any incident. The allegations against the Opposite parties are false. There is no basis for claiming damages of Rs.90,000/-. The electric bill and receipts are pertaining to residential house and not I.P. Sets. The Opposite parties always ready to give electric connection provided all the obstructions are removed by the complainant and the complainant execute the agreement, regarding connection through cable. On this ground, the Opposite parties have sought for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.14. The 1st Opposite party is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.6 and the complainant has also produced RTC copy of land of Smt.Shardamma. 5. We have heard both the sides 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer? 2. Whether the Opposite party has failed to provide electric supply without sufficient reasons? 3. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation sought for? 5. What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The Opposite parties have taken a contention that the complainant is not a Consumer, because electric supply is free service to the I.P. Set of the complainant. In the evidence, it is not at all suggested to the complainant that he is not a Consumer and the electric receipts Ex.C.1 to C.4 and C.6 to C.8 and bills Ex.C.5 & C.9 are not relating to I.P. Set. If we see, the Ex.C.1 to C.4 and C.6 to C.8, it is clearly mentioned as that the amount was for I.P. Set and even the bill Ex.C.5 and C.9 are pertained to I.P. Set. Therefore, the electric receipts clearly established that the Opposite party was not providing free electric supply to the complainants I.P. Set. Therefore, there is no reason to hold that the complainant is not a Consumer, but the evidence available in record clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer for the I.P. Set apart from the residential house. 9. According to the complainant, on the guise of replacing the pole, the Opposite party has disconnected electric supply to his I.P. Set. But the contention of the Opposite party is that since the electric pole was damaged and likely to fall causing harm to the public it was replaced with new pole and the persons of the neighbouring houses objected for providing electric supply through cable connection underground complaining electric ground to their houses. It is an admitted fact that originally the electric connection was given through underground cable in between two houses. Even as per the evidence of R.W.1, the house owner had damaged the cable is not denied by the complainant. So in that situation, the 1st Opposite party even lodged a complaint to the police as per Ex.R.1, but it was not of use. The evidence and documents also revealed that the Opposite parties tried to provide electric connection by erecting electric pole in the land of one Smt.Shardamma, but Smt.Shardamma has objected and given legal notice not to draw electric line over her site and in that regard, the Opposite party has sent reply Ex.R.2. The complainant has admitted in his evidence that the neigbhourers Javaraiah and his sons objected for drawing wire to the pump set. Even though, the complainant has lodged a complaint to the police against them, no action was taken. The complainant also admitted that on the land of Smt.Shardamma electric pole was erected and line was drawn to that pole, but Smt.Shardamma has objected for drawing the electric line from the pole to the pump set of the complainant, pleading that it is a vacant site. In this regard, Opposite party has sent reply Ex.R.2 to produce the documents, but no further action was taken. The complainant has produced R.T.C. copy of the land of Smt.Shardamma and it proves that it is not a site and it is a revenue land. The 1st Opposite party has admitted that they can draw the electric line over the agricultural land and not over the sites and houses. Therefore, though the Opposite parties have not intentionally disconnected the electric supply and there was delay in providing electric connection due to the obstruction by the neighbour houses and then though the electric pole was erected in the land of Smt.Shardamma, but electric connection could not be given to the I.P. Set of the complainant due to objection by the Smt.Shardamma. But, the Opposite parties have not tried seriously to consider the objection of Smt.Shardamma, because as per the reply notice Shardamma die not produce any documents to show that it is a site and not a agricultural land. There is no bar under Electricity Act to draw electric line over agricultural land and even if the owner of the land objects, the 1st Opposite party ought to have drawn the electric line from the electric pole to the pump set of the complainant with police help, but such action was not taken by the 1st Opposite party. Therefore, 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.90,000/- on the ground of loss of crops like Coconut, Arecanut, Banana and Mango and also for mental agony. He has claimed Rs.50,000/- for loss of income from the garden and Rs.20,000/- for adverse effect to the family on account of stoppage of electricity and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for expenditure due to stoppage of electricity. But, the complainant has not produced any documents to prove any mental agony or effect on his family and expenditure due to stoppage of electricity supply. But, the complainant has produced some photos to prove that the banana crops have dried and naturally for want of water supply to the Banana crops and Arecanut crop there was damage to some extent. Therefore, it is reasonable to assess compensation of Rs.3,000/-. 11. Further, the Opposite party is responsible to provide electric supply from the pole erected on the land of Smt.Shardamma by drawing the electric line with police help, if necessary. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and to provide electric connection to the IP set of the complainant by drawing electric line from the electric pole erected on the land of Sharadamma with assistance of the Police, if necessary, within two months from this date. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of April 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
