Karnataka

Bidar

CC/26/2015

Mallamma W/o Subhash - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

  ::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                  C.C.No. 26/2015

 

                                                                                       Date of filing : 17/04/2015

 

                                                                                 Date of disposal : 17/03/2017

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                              (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

                                   

                                   

COMPLAINANT/S:         Mallamma, w/o Subhash,

                                                 Age: 53 year, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                 R/o Mannalli,Tq.& Dit.Bidar.

             

               

                                            (By Shri. P.M.Deshpande, Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               Executive Engineer,

                                                  GESCOM, Bidar.  

     

                                           ( By Shri Mahesh S.Patil, Advocate)   

 

                                               

::   J U D G M E N T  : :

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

 

                       This is a complaint filed by the above named complainant U/sec. 12 of C.P.Act, against O.P alleging deficiency in service by the O.P.s.  The subject of the case is as under.

 

2.                Complainant is native of village Mannalli, Tq.&Dist. Bidar, she is an agriculturist having agricultural land in sy.no.68/1 to the extent of 4acre,  29 Guntas, situated at Mannalli, Tq.&Dist.Bidar.  The complainant had planted sugarcane  in her agricultural land.  There was an I.P. set pole used for irrigating water to the sugar cane.     The live electricity supply to  the T.C. attached to it but, the T.C. pole connected is not functioning due to defect in T.C. and not yet rectified by the Gescom, despite of several representation from the farmers.  Due to non supply of electricity I.P. set connected for irrigating water since 3 to 4 months prior to the time  harvest season remaining idle and the entire crop has been detoriated and caused total loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant.  It is the deficiency of service of the O.P. as well as improper functioning, dereliction resulted heavy losses to the complainant.  The O.P. being service provider has utterly failed to effect  its proper services.  So the O.P. as per her is entirely liable for the losses caused to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint before us claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- against the O.P.

 

 

3.                The O.P. receiving Court notice, engaged a counsel who filed

written version therein stating that, the complaint is factually and legally not correct and it is not at all maintainable .  The complainant may be native of  Mannalli village, Tq,&Dist.Bidar, it is not in the knowledge of the O.P. that, she is an agricultural land  in Sy.no.68/1 to the extent of 4 acre 29 Guntas situated at Mannalli village and it is also not in the knowledge of O.P. that she is owner and possessor of  the said land.  The complainant might have planted sugarcane in her agricultural land and she has not shown the year of plantation of sugarcane hence this fact was denied by the O.P.  The calculation of damages at expected yield @ per acre 40 quintals is false and it is not believable therefore, the calculation is far away from the truth and base less allegation.  There is  no single piece of paper to show that the complainant has given representation to the O.P.   Further it is submitted that there is no such records  and statement to show that deficiency of service of the O.P. and statement and improper functioning dereliction resulting loss to the complainant.  The O.P. further avered that one Sri.Subhash who is husband of the complainant  running 4 institution of currently out of which   two are  authorized and two institutions are unauthorized.  The unauthorized institution was using the current by way of theft and whenever the Gescom authority visits the spot and repaired the service wire and after where as he connecting the base wire and the details of pump sets is enclosed.  Therefore none other except this complaint has   filed any complaint though there are fourteen beneficiaries to that Transformer.  Therefore claim is not bonafide and true.  The O.P. denied  that before filing this complaint notice was issued to the O.P. which is un answred .  Further the complainant  mentioned in her complaint that “ Fresh causeof action to file this complaint will within limitation provisions of C.P.Act”. Here the statement shows that the complainant has grown the sugar cane before 3 to 4 years or more than that or even not shown that sugarcane.  For which the above statement is enumerated in para no.3 of the complaint speaking about question of limitation itself shows that, when and which year the crop was destroyed for want of current supply is not disclosed.  The complainant if at all growing the sugarcane she must produce such documents showing that, which year and the yield of the sugar cane grown and the total amount  to be paid by the Sugar factory.  Therefore no such information is forthcoming to establish that complaint was growing the sugar cane in her field.  Further it can be seen from the certificate issued by the Village Accountant that, or date of certificate no year is mentioned in his letter and also there is no outward number.  This shows that it is created by the complainant or village Accountant has issued this bogus certificate to the complainant.  Therefore the certificate of Village Accountant does not  hold any truth in any angle.  Here this certificate may be a  created certificate.  Further Village Accountant is not authorised official to issue such certificate.  In the ROR of the complainant it is no where mentioned that complainant is growing the sugar cane.  Hence, this complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

4.               Both the sides have filed their evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective contentions and documents relied upon are described at the end of the order.

 

 

 

5.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

 

 

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

 

 

1.  

2. What order ?

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1.   In the negative.

               2.  As per the final order, for the following:

 

                                                                                                     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

7.  Point no.1:-  As has been truly pointed out by the O.P. in the version, evidence affidavit and arguments, the complaint is a vague one having no specific details as to the year of plantation and no document has been produced by the complainant to the effect that, she is a bonafide user and hence Consumer of the O.P.  The unsigned piece of paper filed by the complainant as Annexure P.4 (Ex.P.4) is the writing of some on one in a white paper without any signature of any official.  No electricity bill, payment receipts or sanction order for the I.P. set has been produced by the complainant in the case.  The color photo produced by the complainant  as Ex.P.1 can be of any place under the sun and does not prove the status of Consumer in the part of the complainant.  Hence we hold the point no.1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following.

 

:: ORDER ::

   

   The complaint is  dismissed as not due.

   There would be no order as to costs or otherwise.

 

  

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 17^th day of March-2017)

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                        

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Colour photograph of land of the complainant.
2. Ex.P.2- Crop information letter.
3. Ex.P.3- Certified copy of information of   land of complainant  
4. Ex.P.4 – So called Electrical connection document ( Unsigned unauthenticated)
5. Ex.P.5- Orioginal Copy of RTC.

 

Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1- Transformer details.

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.     

 

 

mv.