Karnataka

Bidar

CC/31/2015

Pralhadrao Patil S/o Bhagvasnthrao - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

28 Mar 2017

ORDER

  ::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                  C.C.No. 31/2015

 

                                                                                       Date of filing : 16/04/2015

 

                                                                                 Date of disposal : 28/03/2017

 

 

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:         Pralhadrao Patil, s/o Bhagvantrao,

                                                 Age: 54 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 UD 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. He is an agriculturist having agricultural land in sy.no.55 to the extent of 3acre, 15 Guntas, situated at Mannalli, Tq.&Dist.Bidar.  The complainant had planted sugarcane  in three acres of  his agricultural land.  There was an I.P. set pole used for drawing and pumping water to the sugar cane.     The live electricity supply  existed to  the T.C. attached to it but, the T.C. connection  was not functioning due to defect in T.C. and was not being rectified by the Gescom, despite several representation from the farmers.  Due to non supply of electricity,  I.P. set installed for drawing water  to irrigate the crop since 3 to 4 months prior to the time of  harvest season was remaining idle and the entire crop was  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 of duty resulted in heavy losses to the complainant.  The O.P. being service provider has utterly failed to effect  its proper services.    So the O.P. was entirely liable for the losses caused to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed the complaint before us claiming a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- 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, he was an agriculturist having 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 he was owner and possessor of  the said land.  The complainant might have planted sugarcane in his agricultural land and he 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 any deficiency of service  in the part of  the O.P. and improper functioning coupled with dereliction resulting loss to the complainant.  The O.P. further avered that one Sri.Subhash who is husband of the complainant  is running 4 institutions  currently out of which   two are  authorized and two institutions are unauthorized.  The unauthorized institutions were using the current by way of theft and whenever the Gescom authority visits the spot and repaired the service wire said Subhash was connecting the base wire  to draw power illegally 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 remained un answered .  Further the complainant  mentioned in his complaint that “ Fresh cause of action to file this complaint was within limitation period of C.P.Act”. Here the statement shows that the complainant had grown the sugar cane before 3 to 4 years or more than that to grow sugarcane.  The above statement as enumerated in para no.3 of the complaint speaking about question of limitation itself shows that, when and  in 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 in which year  it was planted 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  sugar cane in his field.  Further it can be seen from the certificate issued by the Village Accountant that, the date of certificate or  year is not  mentioned in his letter and also there is no outward number.  This shows that it is created by the complainant or village Accountant had issued  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?

 

2. What order ?

 

 

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

 

               1.   In the affirmative in part.

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

 

 

 

                                                                                                     

 

:: REASONS ::

 

7. Point No.1:     The complainant in his complaint has dealt about crop loss in his land bearing Survey no. 55, extent acres 3.16 guntas in Manalli          ( village) and Hobli, Bidar Tq. & District and claims to have planted sugar cane in an area of 3 acres.  The complainant contends that, due to non supply of power to his I.P. for months together, his grown sugar cane  crop was lost and waned for which he assessed his compensation at Rs.2,30,000/-.  Evidencing his land holding, he has produced R.T.C. of the land at Ex.P.5, Mutation register at Ex.P.4 and regarding loss of crop, he has submitted crop certificate of the Village Accountant, the local revenue official at Ex.P.2, from which it is evident that the Transformer being burnt three months prior to 12/11/2014, the crop had dried up.  The certificate further discloses that, the crop loss was to the tune of 120 Tons.  The certificate at Ex.P.3 confirms the cropping pattern.  But no where in the case record, we found any notice or representation to the O.P. informing about the destruction of the Transformer and non-supply of the required power to the land of the farmer, which proves his own complacency and resultant ultimate loss for which proper apportionment of negligency must be planted against him.  It’s a fact that, no proof of obtaining electricity supply to his land has been submitted by him but, the O.P. has submitted document vide Ex.R.1, wherein, interalia it is evident that, factually the complainant was provided with power supply of 5 H.P. load, to lift water from open well.  So the feigning of ignorance in the version of the O.P. holds no water, and it is proven beyond doubt that, the complainant was a consumer of the O.P.  The O.P. cannot be permitted to wriggle out of it’s responsibility of ensuring required power supply to it’s customer.

8.          The O.P. in the versions, oblivious of the claim of the complainant regarding survey no.55 of Mannalli village, has dealt with survey no. 68/1 of the same village, measuring acre 4.2 G. Said Sy.no.68/1 was subject matter of another case bearing C.C.no.26/2015 filed by one Mallamma, w/o Subhas of the same village and the case was dismissed for lack of evidence.  It appears, the versions filed in the present case is a verbatim reproduction of Mallamma’s case in C.C.no.26/2015, dismissed earlier, by adopting copy and paste method without application of mind in the part of the O.P. which is deplorable perse.  This, being the attitude, activity and demonstration of sense of duty of the O.P., how we can at all believe the innocence of the O.P. as claimed?  Hence we are constrained to answer point no.1 accordingly.

 

9.    Point No.2:-    Approaching to answer point no.2, we fix our gaze on Ex.P.1, a color photo of the field of the complainant, evidencing standing sugar cane crop.  Major portions of the crops are seen to be waned considerably, but portions still show greenery of the plants, which is about 10% of the crops grown.  We therefore, conclude that the complainant had sustained crop loss to the extent of 90% of the entire crop,  which would work out to be Rs.1,62,000/- ( Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand only ) and the same should be reimbursed by the O.P.  But, as said earlier, the complainant has never approached the O.P. regarding the impeding crop loss by any  notice or representation, his negligence to be calculated at 50%, and the O.P. should be held liable for the loss of the rest 50%, which works out to be Rs.81,000/- and hence we proceed to pass the following:

 

 

:: ORDER ::

   

1.  The  O.P. is liable to reimburse a sum of Rs.81,000/- to the complainant.
2. There would be no order as to compensation or interest owing to the negligence of the complainant.
3. The O.P. would further be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

  

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th  day of March-2017)

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                        

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Colour  photo of the field
2. Ex.P.2- Crop certificate of Village Accountant.
3. Ex.P.3- Drudhikarana Pathra.
4. Ex.P.4 –Mutation Register extract.

5. Ex.P.5- R.T.C. of Sy.no.55, Mannalli village.

 

Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1- Transformer certificate, dt.25/09/2015.

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.     

mv.