::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.6/2016
Date of filing: 03.02.2016.
Date of disposal:12.09.2017
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: Shivaji Rao S/o Ramshety,
Age :65years, Occ:Agriculture,
R/o Near Khandkeshwar Vidya Mandir,
Kumbar Galli,
Bhalki.
(By Sri P.M.Deshpande, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: The Executive Engineer,
GESCOM,
BIDAR.
(By Sri. Mahesh S.Patil, Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T : :
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
- The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:
The complainant is an agriculturist having his land is.Sy.No.349/4 measuring 06-Acres 38-guntas situated at Bhalki of Bidar district. The complainant intending to develop his agriculture land, had dug borewell. The complainant has deposited Rs.24,709/- with the O.P to get install the poles and live wires for power connection to the borewell. The O.P has sanctioned the poles and wire on 27.12.2010 but has not installed the poles and wires till this date. Thought the complainant visited several times to the office of the O.P., there was no response from the other side. In the meanwhile, the borewell dug in the said land had got blocked, for which the complainant lost all the hopes to develop his agricultural land. Prior to filing of the present complaint, a representation was given to the O.P in the month of August-2015, which shows the cause of action. The complainant sustained loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. The O.P is liable to pay said loss. The complainant is the consumer of the O.P. The O.P is the service provider, who has utterly failed in discharging the services towards its consumer i.e., the complainant. Hence the complaint.
- The Opponent entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, has filed detailed version, denying the allegations in the complaint, inter alia contended that, the complainant may be the native of village Bhalki, District Bidar. The O.P has no knowledge about the agricultural land and its extent. It is submitted, the complainant has deposited the amount of Rs.24,709/- for the installation of poles with live wire on 27.12.2010. The O.P. has sanctioned the poles and wire for installation with RR No.BHIP 58430 and this installation was serviced under General IP set scheme as per intimation No.GESCOM/BDR/EEE/AEE(o)/AE-1/2010-11/10185-84 dated 28.12.2010. It is submitted that, when the lineman visited the spot for installation, there was sugarcane crop in the agricultural land and the complainant requested not to install the poles as the crop grown would be damaged and further that he would intimate after harvesting the sugarcane for installation of the poles. The complainant was utilizing the power supply through service wire,for lifting the water from the borewell. Looking into the facts that the sugarcane crops grown in the agricultural land, the lineman came back and intimated to the office. The complainant with an ill-intention has filed this case against the O.P., after lapse of 05 years. The complainant has falsely stated that, he has filed representation in the month of August-2015. It is submitted by O.P that, the claim of the complainant requires detailed examination and cross examination of witnesses, which is not available in the instant proceeding. Hence, it is prayed that, the complaint be dismissed as barred by limitation with costs.
- The complainant has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also the complainant has filed evidence affidavit justifying his side. On the other hand, O.P has filed versions, evidence affidavit justifying its side. No documents filed on behalf of O.P. Both sides have filed written arguments.
5. Considering contention of the complaint, the following points arise for our consideration:-
- Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
- What order?
6. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
1. In the affirmative
2. As per final orders owing to the following:
:: REASONS ::
7. Point No.1 :-Both sides are in agreement on a common groound that, the complainant had applied for electrical connection to his bore well, the power supply was sanctioned and required amount levied by the opponent was defrayed. Albeit, the opponent has feigned an ignorance about the land holding of the complainant in Para-2 of the versions, the documents at Ex.P.6 in which, the opponent corporation itself has mentioned the Sy. Number of the, land, belies the feignings of the opponents. Next, an attempt was made by the opponent to scult the case, attempting to take shelter on the ground of limitation at the threshold of the case, which was justifiably negated by the Forum u/s 22 of the Limitation Act.
8. Regarding the non providing of power connection sanctioned during the year 2010-11 for which the dues was remitted on 10.01.2014, the opponent takes a plea that, when the concerned line man went to install the poles in the field of the complainant, it was postponed by the pleas of the complainant as standing crops were there and any activity for installation of poles would have destroying effect on the crops. No date of such visit has been ever mentioned by the opponent (which if at all true should be much after 10.01.2014), nor the opponent has ever bothered to examine the lineman to establish the veracity of such claim. Thereafter, it is apparent, no attempt was ever made by the opponent to issue any notice to the consumer. Any notice of withdrawal of sanction was ever issued, which means, the sanction order and consequential deposit of the consumer, both were in libernation, till the present case was filed.
9. Even after the complaint was made, the opponent, a public officer, paid from public funds, never took any positive step to assuage the grievances of a citizen, rather tried to justify his inaction with most ridiculous jugglery of words. It really does not speak of proper account- ability of the systems. The facts mentioned above clearly indicate deficiency of service in the part of the opponent and hence we answer the point accordingly.
10. Coming to analyze the claims of the complainant for compensation, we find the same as most ludicrous. We fail to understand, how a deep bore well dug would collapse due to non-supply of electricity and non water lifting. The bore well dug, properly capped and casings provided would have no chance to collapse and such claim has no rationale behind it. Even otherwise, Bidar district has been victim of rainfall deficit over the last few years and resultant ground water depletion. Thereby, we reject the obnoxious, opportunistic claim of the complainant for compensation in toto and proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponent is directed to provide the electrical connection to the complainants bore well without demur;
- There would be no order as to compensation or litigation expenses in favour of the complainant;
- Four weeks tome granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 12th day of September-2017).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- Sanction order of Power provision.
- Ex.P.2 &5– Electricity bills.
- Ex.P.6 – Sketch and details of estimate.
Document produced by the Opponent.
-Nil-
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
