Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member .
The present complaint pertains to deficiency of service as provided under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. Its brief history is as follows:-
The Complainant being a consumer bearing consumer No.415001035471 has taken an electric connection to run his deep bore well, for agricultural purpose to irrigate his 6(six) acres of land situated in Mouza Jitapali vide Khata No. 73 and 113/65 upon which he has sown “Navin” kisam of paddy. On Dt.05/03/2013, electricity supply to the L.I.Point stopped as the transformer became defective being burnt and the semi cultivated land was affected. The Complainant with other villagers intimated the fact to the officials of the Opposite Party who did not take any action over the matter and the Complainant sustained a loss which in terms of the total usufruct of the land accumulate in to an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand)only besides mental agony and pain. The Complainant claim from Opposite Parties Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand)only towards compensation for the loss met to him for loss of crops for loss of crops, Rs. 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only towards mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards litigation expenses.
The Complainant to substantiate his case has filed the following xerox copies of the documents and adduced evidence through affidavit.
Copy of I. Card of Basanta Mahakur bearing No. OR/17/124/102264.
R.O.R. bearing Khata No. 113/65 of mouza Jitapali.
Application of Complainant and endorsement of the Sarpanch Jhar G.P.
Rent receipt for the year 2008-09.
Money receipt issued by WESCO Dt.22/03/2010.
Electricity bill by WESCO.
Certificate copy of MS R.O.R. vide Khata No. 73 of village Jitapali.
Being noticed, the Opposite Parties appeared through Advocate and filed their joint version denying almost all the allegations made by the Complainant.
The Opposite Parties in their version have denied that the Complainant being consumer of the Opposite Parties has taken an electricity connection to run his deep bore well in order to facilitate the cultivation. So also the Opposite Party have raised objection as to non filing of any documents from competent authority as to the extent of land cultivated by the Complainant and loss sustained by the Complainant for loss of crop. The Opposite Parties further submitted that, the alleged transformer was burnt due to Act of God and not due to their negligence act. Further submission of Opposite Parties is that due to non availability of proper transformer to carry on the load factor in the local office at Ghens it was not possible to install another transformer immediately and after official correspondence obtained a transformer of suitable capacity from Burla stock and installed on Dt.30/03/2010. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In support of his case the Opposite Parties filed the following documents and affidavit.
Copy of break down report of S.D.O., Electrical subdivision, WESCO, Sohella, along with single line diagram.
Copy of letter bearing No. 172 Dt.18/03/2010 towards submission of break down report to the Executive Engineer, BWED, Burla.
Copy of letter Dt.19/03/2010 of Executive Engineer for submission of transformer break down report to the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Burla, Sambalpur.
Copy of letter Dt.20/03/2010 towards release of repaired transformer for replacement against break down to the Executive Engineer, BWED, Bargarh.
Copy of receiving the material by store keeper.
Copy of store indent/issue voucher.
Copy of list of villagers of Jitapali against whom huge amount of arrear is stand.
Having gone through the complaint petition, Opposite Parties's version there to as well as the copies of documents, and affidavits available in the record and the Forum finds as follows:-
The father of the Complainant as per the contract with the Opposite Parties was provided with electric connection for L.I. Point as agricultural category which is revealed from the electricity bill issued by the Opposite Parties Dt.22/03/2010.
Admittedly by the transformer was burnt on Dt.08/03/2010 and re-installed on Dt.30/03/2010 which is clearly reveals from the documents filed by the Opposite Parties.
The Opposite Parties in their version have denied the Complainant as their consumer and so also supply of electricity for L.I. Point as agricultural purpose. At the same time the Opposite Parties in their affidavit filed before the Forum categorically admitted the Complainant to be their consumer and supply of electric current for L.I. Point as agricultural purpose.
The Opposite Parties disputes as to extend of land cultivated by the Complainant as of right. Further dispute as to non filing of documents of competent authorities relating to cultivation and crop loss.
Facts which are admitted by the Parties orally or through documents need no probe. Hence for finding No.1(one) and No.2(two) are not to be answered any more by this Forum.
Answering finding No.3(three), the Opposite Parties in their version have denied the Complainant as their consumer so also supply of electricity for L.I. Point as agricultural purpose. At the same time the Opposite Party No.1(one) in his affidavit Para-2(two) has categorically admitted the Complainant to be their consumer and supply of electricity to his L.I.Point for agricultural purpose. The electricity bill Dt.22/03/2010 issued by the authority of Opposite Parties in the name of Lalji Mahakur, the father of the Complainant for L.I. Point as agricultural category and the receipt Dt.22/03/2010 for payment of electrical dues by the Complainant. Conclusion can be drawn infavour of the Complainant as consumer of Opposite Parties. Further the Complainant being the beneficiary in his father's property assumes all right and liabilities. Hence the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties's and the electric connection was provided for agricultural purpose.
Answering finding No.4(four), the Complainant to prove his contentions has filed MS R.O.R bearing No. 113/65 and certified copy of MS R.O.R. bearing No.73 both Mouza Jitapali. Delving deep in to both the land records, it is found from the remarks column that the plot No. 331/1103 and 332/1104 amounting to Ac. 0.48(forty eight) decimal of MS R.O.R. bearing No. 113/65 of Mouza Jitapali was brought into it from MS R.O.R. No. 73 of Mouza, Jitapali, Bhubaneswar Mahakur son of Lokanath Mahakur is the recorded tenant inrespect of land in MS R.O.R. No. 73 of Mouza Jitapali. The relationship of the Complainant Basanta mahakur with Bhubaneswar Mahakur is not established by the Complainant in any manner. So any right of the Complainant over the property contend in MS R.O.R. No. 73 of Mouza Jitapali is not accepted by the Forum. But as regard the property contend in the MS R.O.R. bearing No. 113/65. The Complainant is a Co-sharer with two others being the sons of Lalji Mahakur is having 1/3 share i.e. AC. 0.16 dec over the property. The Complainant has furnished bills and receipts of different person in respect of expenditure for cultivation of the land are also not proved by examining those persons who issued the same. The endorsement of Sarpanch, Jhar G.P. in the application of the Complainant also not reveals the exact loss of crop. Therefore the claim relating to exact financial loss of Rs. 1,30,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirty thousand )only is not proved by the Complainant convincingly with more cogent evidence.
However for non supply of electricity by the Opposite Parties for long twenty two days as the lift irrigation became in operative, the standing crop must have some damages as of general prudence.
Besides as per OERC Regulation -2004, non supply of electric current due to transformer failure after the time limit allowed for recourse is a deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties and they are liable for compensation to the eligible consumers.
In view of the above discussion, the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in service towards the Complainant.
Considering all the facts and evidence on record, the Forum Order as follows.
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees tw0 thousand)only towards compensation for loss of crop and Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand)only towards mentalagony and litigation cost to the Complainant. The awarded amount shall be paid within forty five days of Order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9%(nine percent) interest per annum till actual date of realization.
Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
