MR. NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER -
Deficiency in service in respect of not providing power supply to the Complainant’s Agri-Project are the allegations arrayed against the Ops.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that Complainant being a educated self-employed person and to maintain his livelihood applied, the Dy. Director Agriculture, Kendrapara under ‘JALANIDHI’ Yojana for cultivation of sunflower being sponsored by Dept. of Agril. Govt. of Odisha. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Korua financed Rs. 99,000/- for the said purpose. Complainant to implement the Project needs power supply, accordingly applied before the Ops completing the official formalities and deposited Rs. 1208/- as security deposit to avail the power supply. But, inspite of several requests the Ops did not energized the power supply to the Complainant’s Project. It is revealed from the Complaint petition that when Ops did not supply the electricity, Complainant to save the Cash crop hired a disel genset for watering, but all the efforts of the Complainant went in-vain due to excessive heat/temperature and without continuous watering. It is further revealed from the Complaint petition that the OERC has fixed Rs. 744/- as security deposit and 6% of the cost of the materials used since electric pole is near to its sited. The demand of Ops for deposit of Rs. 500/- as service connection charge is illegal and without any basis. Complainant being harassed by Ops for non-emergization of the water harvesting unit i.e, ‘JALANIDHI’ filed the present complaint with prayer before this Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 99,000/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. Being notice, Ops appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written statement stating that Complainant has applied for electric connection of 2K.W. load factor and as per the report of the line man the distance between nearest electric Pole to supply point is 20 meters and as per the Rules, Complainant-consumer has to pay Rs. 500/- for service connection charge without materials and Rs. 1500/- with materials. Accordingly, Complainant has deposited Rs. 708/- as security deposit and Rs. 500/- for service connection charges in toto Rs. 1208/-. It is averred in the written statement that required documents were not filed bythe Complaiannt for which Ops could not physically verified whether power supply can be effected to the proposed consumer for the existing structure. It is also averred that the land in question over which proposed Electric connection was required and stands recorded in the name of several persons and the Complainant has not furnished the no-objection certificate (NOC) of other Co-sharers, which is required under the rules to provide the power supply and in the circumstances, the Ops have not committed any deficiency in service rather due to latches of the Complainant, the power supply could not be affected. The demand of illegal gratification is denied by the Ops and such allegations have never brought into the Notice of the Ops and the Ops can’t provide power supply without fulfillment of required criterias. In the aforesaid reasons, the Complaint bears no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by authorized agent of the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Ops and gone through the Xerox copies of documents filed by the Parties. The admitted facts of the case are that Complainant to avail power supply to his Project applied before the Ops by depositing treasury challan of Rs. 75/- and Rs. 25/- as processing charge. It is also admitted that Complainant his deposited Rs. 1208/- which includes security deposit and service connection charge. It is further admitted that till filing of the Complaint no power supply has been effect to the Complainant’s Project. The Complaint is filed against Op-electricity authority for non-energizing the power supply to the Complainant’s Project, which was sponsored by Deptt. of Agrl. Govt. of Odisha and financed by State Bank Of India, Korua. Due to such non-energization and shortage of water for cultivation. Complainant sustained a financial loss as the Project under ‘JALANIDHI’ Yojana is a Cash-crop Project. On the other hand the reason of non-energization Ops, state that as the land record/particulars filed by Complainant to avail power supply have several co-shares including the Complainant and under the provisions of OERC No objection certificate is required from other co-shares to effect the power supply. The reasons of non-energization as stated by Ops, which is a legal requirement for providing power supply is not clarified by the complainant-consumer. In this aspect, we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Complainant to furnish No-objection certificate for effect power supply to the Complainant’s Project and for the allegation of non-energization of power supply the Ops can’t be liable of any deficiency in service equally when the Ops are not liable for non-energization, the loss of crops as alleged by the Complainant against Ops can’t sustain in eye of law.
It is admitted fact that Complainant has deposited Rs. 1208/- towards security deposit and service connection charge, and it is also admitted that power supply has not been effected on the application of the Complainant. So, it is the legal obligation of the Ops to refund the amount of Rs. 1208/- to the Complainant, as the purpose of the said deposited amount is not fulfilled.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that, Ops will refund Rs. 1208/- to the Complainant within one month of the receipt of this order, failing which 6% interest will be charged for the delayed period.
Accordingly, the Complaint is allowed in part without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 18th day of September,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
