::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
AT BIDAR::
C.C.No. 23/2014.
Date of filing : 01/04/2014.
Date of disposal : 27/10/2016.
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: Ramreddy S/o Irarreddy,
Age: Major, Occ: private work
R/o Village Raipally
Tq: Aurad Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. P.M. Deshpande ., Advocate )
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S :- 1. The Executive Engineer,
GESCOM Bidar.
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
GESCOM Aurad, Dist: Bidar.
( O.P. No.1 By Sri R.K Ganure, Advocate.,
O.P. No.2 Exparte )
:: J UD G M E N T : :
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
Herein, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum by filing complaint u/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, which reads as hereunder:-
2. That, he is an agriculturist, having a small holding of land in Sy.No.18/2 of village Raipalli, Tq: Aurad and was contemplating to develop the land. Keeping that in view, he had dug a bore well, wherein water was found and he intended to install an I.P. set and provide power to the same from the existing electrical line by erecting additional poles and other equipments like Transformer etc.
3. That, apropos to his approach to the opponents, an estimate was prepared by the opponents vide Ex.P3 and the complainant has remitted totally a sum of Rs.14,800/- vide two receipts (copies) (ExP-4) and the same is mentioned in Ex P3 which tantamount to acknowledgement of payments. Inspite of receiving the payment, since the opponents did not live up to their promises, exasperated, the complainant on 03.10.2013 had filed petition to the O.P.S. vide Ex P.5 filed together with postal receipts in vain. Approach was repeated vide Ex.P.6 on date: 01/11/2013, so also vide Ex. P.7.
4. It is the say of the complainant that, inspite of payment of the dues, several communications as stated supra, and legal notice date: 24/02/2014 (office copy as Ex.P1), neither the proposed 11 K.V. line has been drawn to his land by erecting poles nor current provided as a consequence of which he is deprived off electricity connection to the I.P.set installed on his land and the water level in the bore well is receding due to non-use. Deficiency of service. He has therefore approached this forum alleging deficiency of service and claiming damages in a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation, cost etc.
5. On receipt of notices, the O.P.s have put up appearances through counsel of their choice and have filed versions on 07/06/2014. The version so filed is mind bungling perse, having no relevance to the issue. However, at a later date another I.A. under order VI Rule 17 C.PC. was filed, stating in the accompanying affidavit that, the complainant was using his I.P. Set by drawing power illegally and thereafter when caught, applied for regularisation of the I.P. set as per scheme floated by Govt. of Karnataka, wherefore the illegal power drawing was regularised by collecting necessary charges. Surprisingly the O.P.s have not taken any step to incorporate the amendments in the main version.
6. In the affidavit, it is further claimed that, connection (Power) has been provide by erecting additional poles and that, false complaint has been filed by the complainant. The O.P.s take a contention that, there is no deficiency of service, since power has been supplied by them and the complaint is not maintainable.
7. Both sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits. The complainant had filed written arguments where as the O.P.s counsel has filed a memo to treat the averments in the versions as his arguments. Only the complainant has filed documents as listed at the end of this order. We have heard both sides elaborately.
8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-
a. Does the complainant prove that, there has been,
deficiency of service in the part of the opponents?
b. And if so, is he entitled for compensation cost and
damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/-?
c. Do the opponents prove that, their actions in
providing electricity to the complainant is in order?
c. what orders?
9. Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-
- Affirmative.
- Affirmative partially.
- Negative.
- As per final orders, owing to the following.
:: REASONS ::
10. The points at (a) and(c) are interwined and have to be answered collectively.
11. The case of the complainant is that, vide Ex.P.3 estimates for regularisation of unauthorised pump sets were prepared in the year 2012 and a sketch was prepared by the O.P.S, forming appendix of Ex.P.3. The complainant claims to have deposited the dues charged by the opponents vide two receipts at Ex.P.4. The O.P.S also acknowledge the receipt of such payments in Ex.P.3 (Page 6 of the document sketch). While the complainant claims that, inspite of receipt of dues, the O.P.S have not installed poles, transformers and drawn electrical lines as mentioned in the Ex.P.3, the O.P.S claim to have completed the works.
12. Our attentions was taken by the complainants counsel to the documents at Ex.P.5,6, And Ex.P7, which are dated 03/10/2013 and 01/10/2013 and also 01/11/2013. Vide these documents (representations) the complainant has been demanding electricity supply to all and sundries in GESCOM. All these communiqués were never attended to by the opponents, so also the legal notice (office copy as Ex.P.1) issued on 24.02.2014. Had the opponents executed the work as per the sketch at Ex.P.3, they would have refuted the contentions of the complainant in his aforesaid representations and the contents of the legal notice as well. The ostrich like attitude of the opponents would only draw a single reasonable inference that, the works as per the sketch appended to Ex.P.3 remains unexecuted, more so, when the opponents are not particular about the date of execution of the work in their versions. Therefore we decide the point (a) in affirmative and (c) in negative.
-
13. As far as point (b) is concerned, the complainant through has claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, cost and damages, no material has been placed before us justifying such a claim. However, the fact remains; he has defrayed necessary charges to the opponents years back during 2012, inspite of which no service has been rendered to him. The negligent and lackadaisical attitudes of opponents, entitle him a suitable compensation, which we fix at a sum of Rs.20,000/- allowing point (b) in part and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponents are directed to instal poles, Transformer (s), draw electrical lines and provide power to the I.P. Set of the complainant within a period of four weeks.
- The opponents jointly and severally are liable to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
- Office to provide free Copies to the parties.
- Four weeks time is granted for compliance.
( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 27th day of October-2016 )
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Office copy of legal notice.
- Ex.P.2- R.T.C. extract of Sy.No.18/2 of the complainant.
- Ex.P.3- Estimates to provide power to complainant (seven sheets Copies).
- Ex.P.4- Two money receipts.
- Ex.P.5- representation of the complainant with three postal receipts.
- Ex.P.6- Another representation of the complainant date: 01.11.2013. (copy).
- Ex.P.7- Representation of complainant date: 01.10.2013. (copy).
Documents produced by the Opponent/s
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Sb..
