Complaint filed on: 24.07.2014

                                                                                                        Disposed on:14.08.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.

C.C. No.81/2014

Dated on this the 14^th  day of  August, 2015

PRESENT:

HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B.,                 ………PRESIDENT

HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, B.COM., LL.B.,                  ……… MEMBER

HON’BLE SMT. H. MANJULA MAHESH, B.A.L, LL.B.,   ……… MEMBER

COMPLAINANT/S:

B. C. Lakshmanachar

S/o late Channachar,

Aged about 38 years,

Agriculturist,

R/o Baigur Village,

Hangaravalli Post,

Chikmagalur Taluk and Dist.

(By Sri. B. M. Lakshmana Gowda,  Advocate)                          

V/s

OPPONENTS   

1.Honnachari @ Maheshachar,

Aged aboutyears,

S/o Rudrachar.

2.Ramachandrachar

S/o Rudrachar,

All are R/o Baigur village,

Hangaravalli Po9st,

Chikmagalur Taluk and Dist.

3.Nagaraj,

Lineman,

MESCOM.,

Avathi Hobli,

Chikmagalur Taluk

4.Rajashekar,

Junior Engineer,

MESCOM,

Avathi Hobli,

Chikmagalur Taluk.

(By  Sri H. C. Krishna,  Advocate for OP 1 to 4)                          

Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Sri. Ravishankar, President

-::: ORDER  :::-

1. The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OP 1 to 4 alleging deficiency in service in not providing the electricity supply to the house of the complainant. Hence prays for direction against Op 1 to 4 to supply the electricity to his a residential house along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.

2.  The brief facts of the complaint is that:

    The complainant is residing in his ancestral property house and obtained electricity connection vide RR No.AL18304 since 13.2.1998.  The said electricity connection was supplied by OP without any interruption since 16 years. The said electricity was supplied to the house of the complainant through a lane passed on the lands of Honnachari and Ramachandrachari.  Such being the case due to lane contact with grown trees in the lands of Honnachari and Ramachandrachari the electric wires are disconnected due to which the complainant suffered loss of electricity.  The said cutting of the electricity line is due to short circuit by contact with the trees. The complainant after disconnection of electricity he immediately complained the OP 1 to 3 for supply of electricity to the complainant house.  But OP 1 to 4 have not made any attempts to supply the electricity to the complainant house by connecting the electricity wires. Due to non supply of the electricity the complainant suffered inconvenience and hard ship to lead his daily life.  Hence complaint alleges a deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 to 4 in not supplying the electricity to the complainant in spite of repeated requests. Hence prays for direction against OP 1 to 4 to supply the electricity and to pay compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above. 

3. After service of notice OP 1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that they do not know that complainant is residing at his ancestral house in his village.  It is not true that the electricity supply was disconnected to the house of the complainant due to short circuit. In fact the electricity lane was intentionally disconnected by the neighbors Honnachari and Ramachandrachari of the complainant.  Because the said electricity line was passed over the lands of said Honnachari and Ramachandrachari.
4.  OP further contended that due to personal revilaty between complainant and Honnachari, Ramachandrachary the said electricity line was disconnected.  They have made several attempts to get electricity supply.  In spite of that the said neighbors are disconnecting the electricity.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 to 4 as alleged by this complaint.  Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.  
5. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P-6 Op also filed affidavit and no documents marked.
6.  Heard the arguments:
7.  In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
8.  Whether there is a deficiency in service in not providing the electricity supply to the house of the complainant?

2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?

8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

i) Point No.1: Negative.

ii) Point No.2: As per Order below.

9. POINT NO.1 & 2:- On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by complainant and Op 1 to 4 there is no dispute that complainant had obtained electricity supply through RR No.AL18340 and it is also admitted by Op 1 to 4 that at present the complainant is suffering lack of electricity. During course of trail the learned advocate for Op 1 to 4 had suggested that they are going to supply the electricity if complainant co-operates with them.  Because the neighbors of the complainant are threatening and made efforts to disconnect the electricity to the complainant.  Accordingly, this forum has directed the complainant to take police help for the purpose of supply of electricity through the line passed over the lands of said Honnachari and Ramachandrachari.  But the complainant had not made any efforts to take the police help in order to get the electricity supply and settlement not reported.  The learned advocate for OP 1 to 4 further suggested the complainant that they are going to supply the electricity to the complainant by other lane if the complainant is going to bare the expenses.  But the complainant not ready to the said offer also.  In our opinion we suggest that complainant has to bare the expenses for the purpose of getting electricity.  But the complainant only insisted to take the electricity on the old lane which the neighbors are continuously attempting to disconnect the electricity supply to the complainant. We found the OP has rightly suggested the complainant to obtained electricity supply by other lane.  The complainant has to accept the suggestion made by Op 1 to 4.  As such we found no deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 to 4 as alleged by complainant.  As such complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons we answer point No. 1 & 2 in Negative. 

- ::: O R D E R ::: -

1. The complaint against Op 1 to 4 is here by dismissed.

2.  Send the free copies of this order to both the parties.

      (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 14^th  day of August, 2015).

               (B.U.GEETHA)                                       (RAVISHANKAR)

                    Member                                                       President.   

      (H. MANJULA MAHESH)                                                                                                   

                     Member

  *prema*