BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 29^th of October 2010

PRESENT

                                               SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT                

                                                                  SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                                                                    SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.128/2010

(Admitted on 17.4.2010)

K.Ganesh Shetty,

Aged 40 years,

Residing at R.H.8A.

1 Main Road,

II Cross road, Land Links Town ship,

Derebail, Konchady,

Mangalore.                                                            …….. COMPLAINANT

(Complainant: Appeared in person)

          VERSUS

Executive Engineer,

K.U.I.D.F.C.

NO.15 12 621, I  Floor,

City Corporation Complex,

Kadri,

Mangalore 2.                                                      ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.K.Krishna Moorthy)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

It is stated that, the Complainant is resident of Mangalore.  In the year 2005, the Opposite Party had undertaken the underground drain construction work in front of the house of the Complainant.  During the course of under ground construction work, the labourers connected to the Opposite Party while digging in a hurry had damaged the underground electric cable wire through which the electricity connection is provided to his house.  It is stated that, immediately Complainant contacted the officials connected to the Opposite Party and requested them to rectify the damage caused to the electric cable wire to which the officials connected to the Opposite Party office.  It is stated that, instead of replacing the damaged cable wire with new cable wire had put a gum tape and on his questioning about the same, the officials connected to the Opposite Party had assured that the gum would be a permanent solution and it would not cause any risk or trouble in future.

It is stated that, having no technical knowledge of the risk involved in an aforesaid act done by the Opposite Party believed words of the officials of the Opposite Party.  But on 8.8.2009 suddenly the electricity connection given to his house got tripped and get the same repaired, Complainant lodged a Complaint before the MESCOM office, the officials of the MESCOM visited the spot and after inspection had informed that the fault was technical as a cable wire is damaged, the installation of a new cable wire is necessary for permanent remedy.  It is stated that, to installation of new cable wire will fetch an cost of Rs.9,000/- and an temporary connection to his house was given from other electricity pole.

It is contended that, as the damage of the cable wire being caused due to negligent act of the Opposite Party and written an letter dated 24.9.2009 requesting the Opposite Party to get a new cable wire through the MESCOM or to compensate in terms of the money to which the Opposite Party sent reply denying the damage.  Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.9,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD.  Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version contended that, there is no consumer relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and there is no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint to try this case and contended that the Complaint is not maintainable.

          It is stated that, the Opposite Party is doing the work for and on behalf of Mangalore City Corporation and it has got nothing to do with the Complainant and this Opposite Party is no way related to the Complainant and there is no relationship and not liable to pay any loss or damage as contended by the Complainant.  It is stated that, the damage was alleged way back in the year 2005 and there is no document to prove the same and contended that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether this FORA has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?
3. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
4. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
5. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Mr.K.Ganesh Shetty, (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Doc.No.1 to 5 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.   One Sri. Mani Narayana K.T. (RW1), Executive Engineer-KUIDFC of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.   Both parties are produced notes of arguments.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i) to (iii): Negative.

                       Point No.(iv) & (v): As per the final order.   

REASONS

5.  POINTS NO. (i) to (v):

From the out set of the records available file of this FORA, we find that, the Complainant came up with this Complaint against the Opposite Party contending that in the year 2005, the Opposite Party had undertaken the underground drain construction work in front of the house of the Complainant.  During the course of underground construction work the labourers connected to the Opposite Party while digging had caused damaged to the underground electrical cable wire through which the electricity connection is provided to the Complainant’s house.  There by caused damage to the electric cable wire, the same has brought to the notice of the Opposite Party and they temporarily put a gum tape to the same but on 8.8.2008 suddenly the electricity connection given to the Complainant’s house got tripped and the MESCOM officials inspected the spot and informed that the installation of new cable wire is required as the cable wire is damaged, for which it will cost Rs.9,000/-.  The above contention of the Complainant itself shows that, there is no consumer relationship between the Complainant and Opposite Party as the Opposite Party is did the work for and on behalf of the Mangalore City Corporation, which is a statutory body.  The Complaint filed by the Complainant is for claiming damages against the Opposite Party while they were doing the drainage work.  No doubt the Opposite Party has done the work if at all any damage caused to the electrical cable work pertaining to the Complainant’s residence, the Complainant has to approach the appropriate authority by filing a suit for damages and not under deficiency of service.  Hence, the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable as this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

In view of the above stated reasons, we hold that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is here by closed and the Complainant is at liberty to approach an appropriate authority.  No order as to cost.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint is closed.  The Complainant is at liberty to approach an appropriate authority.  No order as to cost.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 7 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of October 2010.)

                                              PRESIDENT

         MEMBER                                                       MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.K.Ganesh Shetty – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Doc.No.1 – 24.9.2009: Letter addressed to the Asst. Director of A.D.B from Complainant.

Doc.No.2 – 7.10.2009: Letter from District Minister  to Asst. Director, KUDCEMP, Mangalore.

Doc.No.3 – 10.11.2009: Letter  to District Minister from the Complainant.

Doc.No.4 – 13.11.2009: Reply letter to the Complainant from Opposite Party.

Doc.No.5 – 23.11.2009: Letter from the Complainant to Opposite Party.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Rw-1: Sri. Mani Narayana K.T. (RW1), Executive Engineer-KUIDFC of the Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:   

-NIL-

Dated:29.10.2010                                                PRESIDENT