Karnataka
Chitradurga
CC/27/2017
Sri Prahaladh.A.N S/o A.L.Narayan - Complainant(s)
Versus
Managing Director,Bescom, - Opp.Party(s)
Sri.Khalid Ahamed
31 Jul 2019
ORDER
COMPLAINT FILED ON : 15/03/2017
DISPOSED ON:31/07/2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA
CC. NO.27/2017 DATED:31st JULY 2019 |
PRESENT :- SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH : PRESIDENT B.A., LL.B.,
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N : MEMBER
M.Com., LL.B.,
COMPLAINANT/S | Sri. Prahaladh A.N. S/O A.L. Narayana Setty, Aged about 54 years, Merchant, R/o Renukapura, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga (Rep by Smt/Sri.Khalid Ahamed, Advocate) |
OPPOSITE PARTIES |
(Rep by Sri.C.S. Kireeti Setty, OP No.1 to 4 Advocate) |
SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH: PRESIDENT
ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs claiming compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of cancellation of agreement and such other reliefs.
2. BRIF FACTS OF THE CASE: That the OPs have invited the complainant for the Solar Roof Top System and the complainant had applied for it on 15th March 2015 with Registration fee of Rs. 2,000/- and Facilitation charges of Rs. 5,000/-. After remittance and complying the formalities the OPs have accepted the same on 19/03/2016. On 16/03/2016 the OPs have entered into an agreement as per format No. 12 with the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission Order No.S/03/01/2013 Dated 10/10/2013 in respect of sale of Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System. It has to be operated by the complainant and power will be supplied by the OP Company, the OP Company has granted 1000KWP Capacity to the complainant situated at Renukapura Village, Challakere Taluk and the OPs are intended to purchase the energy at the rate of 9.56 KWh from the complainant. The complainant had entered into agreement with the Opponent OP No.4. Further it is submitted that the Land Bearing survey no.35/2 measuring 4-31 acres situated at Renukapura Village of Challakere taluk. The complainant had constructed a building for this purpose in the said land and also secured the meter, the same has been approved by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission has per his letter dated 10/05/2016. It is further submitted that the complainant was surprised to see the letter from the OP No.4 on 20/08/2016 stating that the complainant had given an application to withdraw SRTS which is false and it is created, and on the basis of it the complainant SRT 16AA3952 Roof Top Solar Photo voltaic System which was granted for 1000KWS, it is created by the OPs. The complainant never executed any form for the cancellation of the said Solar RTPV to the OPs. The OPs have created this application for which the complainant had suffered loss, by the unfair trade deceptive practice adopted by the OPs. The complainant had availed the said services exclusively for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. It is only a source of his livelihood. The complainant had constructed a building at the cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- and he had follow-up the construction work, leaving the business for 5 months, on the fond hope that he will earn in future. If the Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System, is continued the complainant will earn not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per month. The act of OP is contrary to law, it is invalid, and it is against all the cannons of Justice and fair play. The complainant had never executed any application for cancellation of the Roof Top Solar photo voltaic system and direct the OPs that the complainant is entitled to continue the said Roof Top Solar Photo voltaic system. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant to an extent of Rs. 18,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of application till the date of the realization of the amount from the OPs.
3. After service of notice, one Sri. C.S. Kireeti Setty, Advocate appeared on behalf of OPs and filed their version. According to the version filed by the OPs, the complainant had applied for Solar Roof Top System and the application on 15/03/2016 and the same was accepted by the Ops on 18/03/2016 is true. It is false to say that the OP No.4 had also issued Technical Feasibility Certificate on 19/03/2016. It is true that on 16/03/2016, the OP No.4 had also entered into an agreement as per format No.12 with the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission order No. 3/01/2013 dated 10/10/2013 in respect of sale of Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System (SRTPV). It is true that, the said system has to be operated by the complainant and power will be supplied to the opponent company and the OPs have granted 1000 KWP Capacity of SRTPV situated at Renukapura, Challakere Taluk and the OPs are intend to purchase energy at the rate of 9.56 KWH from the complainant. Complainant has owned land bearing Re.Sy.No.29/4 measuring 07 acres 31 guntas situated at Renukapura Village, Challakere Taluk is true. It is false to say that, the Complainant had constructed a building for installation of SRTPV System in the said land and further false to say that the complainant has also secured the meter, and it is further false to say that, the land is ready for the installation of SRTPV system. It is further false to say that, the complainant has taken approval by the KERC for the installation of SRTPV system in the land bearing RE.Sy.No.29/4 of Renukapura Village. The entire averments made in para 4 of the complaint regarding the creation of application by the OPs to withdraw SRTS are all false and it is further false to say that the complainant had suffered loss by the unfair trade Deceptive practice adopted by the OPs. The averments made in para 5 of the complaint that, the complainant had constructed a building at the cost of 5,00,000/- is false and far from truth. It is settled condition that, a person who had existing building in his name, also to file an application for the installation of SRTPV system. It is further false to say that, the complainant had follow up the construction work living the business for 5 month on the fond hope that, he will earn in future and the question of constructing the building after filing of an application doesn’t arise at all. It is absolutely false and incorrect to say that, if the SRTPV system is continued, the complainant will earn not less than Rs 1,00,000/- per month and the Complainant is put to strict prof of the same. The averments made in para 6 of the complaint that, the Act of the OP is contrary to law and invalid and against all the cannons of justice and fair play are all false and far from truth. The averments made in para 7 of the complaint that, the Complainant had never executed application for cancellation of the SRTPV system is false and far from truth and the other averments made in same para are all false and far from truth. The averments made in para 8 of the complaint that, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant to the extent of Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of application till the date of realization of the amount the OPs are all false and far from truth. It is settled form that, the SRTPV system should install on the Roof Top of the building and the same is within the knowledge of the complainant has agreed for installation of the SRTPV system on the Roof Top of the RCC building. It is settled terms between the parties that, the complainant should have constructed building at the time of filing of application Form for installation of SRTPV system. If really the complainant wants to install 1000 KWP capacity of SRTPV system, he should have 100000 Sq Ft roof. The complainant never converted the land bearing Re.Sy No.29/4 measuring 7 acres 31 guntas of Renukapura Village, Challekere taluk for non-agricultural purpose. The installation of SRTPV system is a commercial trading activity. Hence it is mandatory on the part of complainant to convert the land for non-agricultural purpose from the competent authority. The complainant never obtained any building license for construction of building in the above said land for the installation of SRTPV system and the complainant has not produced the blue print of the same and those documents should be authenticated by the local Panchayath Development Officer. The complainant never constructed any type of RCC building in land bearing Re.Sy.NO.29/4 measuring 7 acres 31 guntas situated at Renukapura Village, Challakere Taluk. The complainant has not produced even a single piece of document to show that, an RCC building is constructed in the above said land as per the guidelines and norms of KERC. The Complainant has secured a meter for a shed which was constructed in Re.Sy.No.29/4 measuring 7 acres 31 guntas situated at Renuikapura Village, Challakere Taluk. It is highly impossible to install the 1000KWP SRTPV system on the temporary shed constructed by the complainant. On 19/08/2016, the complainant had given an application to the opponent no.4 for cancellation of PPA executed by him in favour of Opponent No.4 by stating his inability in completing the installation of SRTPV Panel Work within 16/09/2016. The said application has been allowed by the opponent No.4 on 28/04/2016in view of the Government Circular dated 10/12/2015 and Government order dated 28/03/2016and the PPA has been cancelled by the complainant. As the complainant himself has agreed and given an application for cancellation of PPA, the OP No.4 has cancelled the PPA and informed the same to the complainant. Only to get wrong monetary benefits from the OPs, the complainant has not disclose the above said facts before this Hon’ble Forum and the same is against law. In view of the application given by the complainant, the Opponent No.4 has canceled the PPA. Hence there is no violation of conditions of the agreement and there is no deficiency of service from the OPs.
4. On behalf of complainant, complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-16 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Kolme Mohammed Sahed S/o Fakruddin Sab, Executive Engineer, BESCOM has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to B-9 documents have been got marked and closed their side.
5. Arguments of both sides heard.
6. Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;
(1) Whether the complainants prove that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling the claim of the complainants and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?
(2) What order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.
Point No.2:- As per final order.
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- There is no dispute between both parties that the complainant is the absolute owner of the land bearing Re.sy.no.29/4 measuring 7 acre 31 guntas situated at Renukapura village, Challakere Taluk. The OPs have invited the complainant for installation of Solar Roof Top system. Accordingly the complainant had applied for the same. On 15/03/2016 complainant has paid Rs. 2,000/- toward registration fee and Rs. 5,000/- towards Facilitation charges, the same has been accepted by the OPs on 18/03/2016 and OPs have issued Technical Feasibility Certificate on 19/03/2016. On 16/03/2016 Complainant and OP No.4 have entered into an agreement as per the Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission Order No.S/03/03/01/2013 dated 10/10/2013 in respect of sale of Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System. The OP No.4 has agreed to supply the 1000KWP Capacity to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant agreed to supply the energy to the OPs at the Rate of 9.56 Kwh. Accordingly the complainant was ready for production of energy and had availed the said service exclusively for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. It is only a source of income for his livelihood and OPs had issued notice to the complainant stating to complete the work within 16/09/2016 from 16/03/2016 i.e., within 3 months. The complainant was given a letter to the OP No.4 stating that, it is not possible to due the work within that period. The OP No.4 has misunderstanding the reply letter given by the complainant. The OPs have agreed and put their signature in the agreement and agreeing to supply the 1000KWH power to the complainant. The complainant has completed all the work in the said Survey Number. But the OP No.4 has failed to supply the power to the complainant. The OP No.4 has taken the contention in his arguments that, the complainant himself has written a letter to the OP No.4 that, it is not possible to due the work and the work may be cancelled. But the complainant has replied that work will not be done within 3 months. But he was not stating that the work entrusted by the OPs have not done. Complainant has invested huge amount for improving his land for the work given by the OPs since from 2016. The OPs have agreed and stated in their version that the OP No.1 had invited application for “SOLAR ROOF SYSTEM” and the complainant has applied for it on 15/03/2016 and the application was accepted by the OPs on 18/03/2016. Further the OP No.4 agreed that on 16/03/2016 he had issued Technical Feasibility Certificate on 19/03/2016 and further agreed that on 16/03/2016 the OP No.4 had also entered into an agreement as per Format No.12 with the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission order No.3/01/2013 dated 10/10/2003 in respect of sale of Solar Roof Top Photo Voltaic System (SRTPV) and further agreed that said system was to be operated by the complainant agreeing to supply the energy to the OPs company. The Ops have agreed to supply 1000KWP Capacity SRTPV to the complainant. The OPs are intended to purchase energy at the rate of 9.56 KWH from the Complainant. In this case OPs have committed deficiency of service while supplying of power well in time. The complainant has suffered a lot because of the agreement entered into with the OPs. As per the document produced by the complainant it clearly goes to shows that the OPs have committed deficiency of service. The complainant and his family are depending upon the earning of the income arising from the supply of energy to the OPs. But the OPs have failed to supply the power to the Complainant. Due to non supplying of the power to the complainant, the complainant has not completed the work. The OPs have failed to follow the conditions of the agreement. Hence the complainant has put into great loss and mental agony. As per the contention taken by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant has earning nearly Rs. one lakh per month from supplying of power/energy to the OPs. The OPs have not denied the same.
9. If complainant raising economical crop in his land i.e. Cotton, Sunflower, Groundnut and Onion definitely the complainant will get income nearly Rs. 15 lakh for two years.
10. We have gone through the entire documents, affidavit and written arguments of both sides. There is no dispute between both the parties that the complainant is the absolute owner of the land bearing sy.No.29/4 measuring 7 acre 31 guntas situated at Renukapura Village. Further there is no dispute between the both parties with regard to agreement. OPs have failed to supply the 1000Kwh power to the complainant well in time as per the agreement. Finally the OPs have issued a letter to the complainant and fixed the time for complete the work within 3 months from 16/03/2016. The complainant has given a letter to the OPs stating that the work was not able to complete within 3 months. On this letter, the OPs have stated that the complainant himself has written a letter about unable to done the work within three months. The complainant never stated anywhere in this letter that, he is not able to done the work. The OPs have misunderstanding the letter of the complainant. Therefore, in any angle, it shows that the OPs have committed deficiency of service, because of non-supplying of power, the complainant fails to complete the work. For non-supplying the power, the complainant has put into great loss and mental agony which cannot be compensated in any other means. The complainant was earing nearly one lakh per month. Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and therefore, the Point No. 1 is held partly affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.
The OPs are hereby ordered to return Registration fee of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- Facilitation charges to the complainant.
It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakh towards loss of income arising from the land and loss of income for none supplying of the energy to the OPs as per the agreement along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of agreement i.e., on 16/03/2016 till realization.
Further OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant towards mental agony and loss of time and energy.
It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of this order.
.
(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 31/07/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:
PW-1:-Complainant by filing affidavit evidence.
Witnesses examined on behalf of OP No.1:
DW-1:- Sri. Kolme Mohammed Sahed S/o Fakruddin Sab, Executive Engineer, BESCOM by filing affidavit evidence.
Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:
01 | Ex-A-1:- | Off line application |
02 | Ex-A-2:- | Requisition for supply of Energy |
03 | Ex-A-3:- | Registration of ack |
04 | Ex.A-4 and 5:- | New Registration form |
05 | Ex.A-6:- | Receipt |
06 | EX-A-7 | Letter dated 9th March 2016 by Bescom, Hiriyur. |
07 | Ex-A-8 | Revenue Report |
08 | Ex-A-9 | Letter dated 19/03/2016 by Bescom, Challakere. |
09 | EX-A-10 | Technical Feasibility report |
10 | EX A-11 to EX-A-13 | Existing DTC Sketch. |
12 | Ex-A-14 | Format 12 (Agreement) |
13 | EX-A-15 | Letter dated 10/05/2016 By KERC |
14 | Ex-A-16 | O.M dated 20/08/2016 By Bescom, Hiriyur. |
Documents marked on behalf of OP No.1:
01 | Ex-B-1:- | Letter by Complainant dated 19/08/2016 |
02 | Ex-B-2:- | O.M. of Bescom Hiriyur, Dated 20/08/2016 |
03 | Ex-B-3:- | Requisition for supply of Energy |
04 | Ex-B-4:- | Format 12 (Agreement) |
05 | Ex-B-5:- | Receipt Letter dated 10/05/2016 By KERC |
06 | Ex-B-6:- | Report of Village accountant |
07 | Ex-B-7:- | 2 Photos |
08 | Ex-B-8:- | Letter dated 27/07/2017 by PDO Renukapura |
09 | Ex-B-9:- | C.D. |
MEMBER PRESIDENT
KMS.,
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.