BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.65/2009 Order dated this the 19th day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S 1. Sri.S.B.Krishna S/o Bettaiah, 2. Sri.S.C.Swamy S/o Late Chikkadasa Heggade, 3. Sri.Chandrashekar S/o Shivanna, 4. Sri.N.S.Siddashetty S/o Narasimha Shetty, All are residing at Sathanur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.S.L.Shankar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Executive Engineer, KPTCL, CESCOM, Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, M.C.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.K.V.Sheshadri., Advocate) Date of complaint 30.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 09.06.2009 Date of order 19.08.2009 Total Period 2 Months 10 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to do all necessary work to issue authorised power to all the complainants borewell as well as open wells within 2 months from this day. The Opposite party is directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party for a direction to do all necessary work for supply authorized power to the I.P. set of the complainants with costs. 2. The case of the complainants are that the Father of the 3rd Complainant and other Complainants have taken electric connection for running of pump-sets and borewells in their lands situated in Sathanur Village, unauthorisedly from the Opposite party Company. As per the scheme of unauthorized into authorized connection of power of the Opposite party Company, the Complainants have deposited Rs.14,800/- each to the Opposite party to get power to their pump-sets. The Opposite party has issued work order on 28.01.2009 to carry out the works for the purpose of regularization or authorized power connection. But, the Opposite party did not carry out any work and after legal notice dated 29.04.2009, the Opposite party has distributed some materials and Opposite party has not taken any action to complete the work. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 3. The Opposite party has filed version, stating that the joint complaint is not maintainable. Since, the Complainants are getting electric connection un-authorisedly for several years, there is no question of causing loss. Due to Administrative problems and shortage in supply of materials, work could not be completed in time. The work is carried out with available materials and within 8-10 days the work will be completed and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the 1st Complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.3. On behalf of the Opposite party one Officer is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.10. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the Father of the 3rd Complainant and other Complainants have taken electric connection to run the pump-sets in their lands from the Opposite party Company un-authorisedly from certain years. As per the scheme of unauthorised connection to authorized connection of the Opposite party, the complainants have deposited Rs.14,800/- each and the Opposite party has issued work order as per Ex.C.2. The complainant has got issued a legal notice Ex.C.1 and served on Opposite party, but there is no reply. According to the complainants, in spite of the deposit of the amount and in spite of work order dated 28.01.2009, the Opposite party has not taken any action for completing the work and only after legal notice, Opposite party has distributed some small materials. But according to the Opposite party, due to administrative problems in supply of materials, the work could not be completed in time and with available materials 22 poles are already fixed and after getting 8 meter poles the work will be completed within 8 10 days as per the written version filed on 09.07.2009. But, R.W.1, A.E.E. who works under Opposite party has filed affidavit that due to non-availability of all the materials from the store, there is delay in completing the work and soon after getting the materials, the work could be completed. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 to R.10, the Indent for supply of materials. All these documents are prior to 25.01.2009. If we peruse these Ex.R.1 to R.10, there is clear entry that all the materials mentioned in the indents are received by the Junior Engineer attached to Rural Sub-Division2, Keelara2, Mandya and there is signature of the Store Keeper of the Opposite party. Therefore, it does not reveal that there is no supply of materials as disposed in the affidavit of witness. Though in the written version, it is pleaded that within 10 days the work could be completed and though the version is filed on 09.07.2009. In spite of receiving the materials as per Ex.R.1 to R.10, the Opposite party Sub-ordinates have not executed the work in time taken in the written version. But, the witness has gone to the extent of saying that the materials are not yet received. Therefore, it clearly shows that there is deliberate delay in executing the work in spite of the work order issued by Opposite party. Further, when the Complainants have deposited the amount directed by the Opposite party and Opposite party has issued work order, within a reasonable time, the work should have been carried out to provide regular connection to the pump-sets of the Complainants, but the sub-ordinates of Opposite party are causing delay wantonly. Under these circumstances, it is proved that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 9. The Complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite party to carry out the necessary work for supply of authorized power. Even though, it is pleaded that no loss would be caused to the Complainants that they are using electricity unauthorisedly. But, if we see the photos, wire is drawn on the lands of others and if electric mishap occurs, the Complainants would be held responsible. Therefore, the Complainants will be put to risk on account of delay tactics of the sub-ordinates of the Opposite party. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled to the direction. 10. It is contended that the joint complaint is not maintainable and individual complaint should be filed. But, the complaint is filed on common cause of action and the deficiency alleged is common. Therefore, the joint complaint can be filed, in the case of complaint, wherein large numbers of Consumers were interested moving of the complaint by one or more of them. Therefore, the present complaint is maintainable. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to do all necessary work to issue authorised power to all the complainants borewell as well as open wells within 2 months from this day. The Opposite party is directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainants. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 19th day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
