Karnataka

Kolar

CC/57/2016

M.Krishnappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri.Narasaraju - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing: 16/09/2016

Date of Order: 21/03/2017

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

 

Dated: 21^st DAY OF MARCH 2017

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 57 OF 2016

Sri. M.Krishnappa,

Aged About 64 Years,

@ Doddamuniswamappa,

Sonanayakanahalli,

Bhyranahalli Post,

Malur Taluk, Kolar District.                        ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. D.V. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

(1) Sri. Narasaraju,

Aged About 59 Years,

Lavanya Electricals, Electrical Contractor,

Tank Road, Near Chikkamaramma Temple

Road, Malur-563 130.

(Ex-parte)

 

(2) The Assistant Executive Engineer

(Division), Work & Execution, Sub Division,

BESCOM, Malur, Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.C.Appaji Gowda, Advocate)

 

(3) The Executive Engineer (Division)

V.K & P. Division, Bangalore Electricity

Company, Champian Reef, K.G.F.

(Ex-parte)

 

(4) The Chief Engineer, BESCOM

B 1 & 2, No.1234, Bangalore Rural

Division, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-44.

(Ex-parte)                                                       …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops and has sought, relief of issuance of directions against the Ops to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, Rs.6,000/- towards litigation costs and to pay 18% interest on Rs.24,000/- from the date of its respective deposits made by the complainant to OP No.1.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    The contention of the complainant is that, in June-2013 complainant got retired from his BEL service. Thereafter on 03.09.2013 complainant approached OP-1 an electrical contractor for obtaining electricity connection to his newly constructed residential house in his native place Sonanayakanahalli in Katha No.86.  After discussions in presence of one Sri.Venkatashappa, aged 55 years, S/o.Late Lakshmaiah and another Sri.Narayanaswamy, aged 42 years, S/o.Late Gangappa, who were also residing in the same village Sonanayakanahalli, OP-1 give assurance to the complainant that, he will provide electricity connection under Niranthara Jyothi Scheme within one month to the complainant’s newly constructed house in Katha No.86 and demanded Rs.22,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.22,000/- to OP-1 in two installments.  Thereafter OP-1 gave copy of the sanctioned order bearing No.M/15484, dated: 18.09.2013 to the complainant pertaining to NJ (Niranthara Jyothi) electricity connection and suggested to note down the same. 

 

(b)    The complainant further submitted that, in spite of lapse of 02 months OP-1 did not comply by providing electricity.  Hence complainant approached OP-1, but OP-1 suggested to approach concerned authorities.  Thereafter complainant wrote letters dated: 27.11.2014, 23.03.2015, 15.06.2015 to OP No.2 and 29.06.2015 to OP No.3 and on 16.07.2015 to OP No.4. 

 

(c)    Further submission of the complainant is that, after above correspondences made by the complainant, OP No.2 wrote an undated letter to the complainant stating that, standby they shall provide single phase electricity and within 3 to 4 months they will provide electricity connection under Niranthara Jyothi Scheme.  After one week OP-2 provided single phase electricity connection with electricity meter bearing No.ML44400.  But in spite of lapse of 01 year Ops did not provide electricity connection under Niranthara Jyothi Scheme.  Hence this complaint.

 

03.   In spite of issuance of notice from this Forum OP Nos.1, 3 & 4 remained absent and did not choose to contest the proceedings.  Hence OP Nos.1, 3 & 4 were placed exparte.  However in response to the notice issued from this Forum, counsel for OP No.2 appeared and filed its version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    The OP No.2 contended that, the allegations made in the complaint pertaining to complainant’s occupation and that in presence of his neighbors one Sri.Venkateshappa and another Sri.Narayanaswamy there is oral agreement between the complainant and OP No.1 and as per the said oral agreement OP-1 should give connection within 01 month, for which OP-1 has received Rs.22,000/- from the complainant in 02 installments are not at all within the knowledge of this OP No.2.  Thereafter OP-1 has given copy of the sanctioned order bearing No.M/5484, dated: 18.09.2013 to the complainant is also not at all within the knowledge of this OP No.2 and the same are specifically denied as false.  Further allegation of the complainant that, he appealed OP No.2 on 27.11.2014, 25.03.2015 and on 15.06.2015 are all false and denied by this OP No.2.  It is submitted that, this OP No.2 has never acted negligently.  The complainant has suppressed various facts to gain sympathy of this Hon’ble Forum and to gain wrongfully. 

 

(b)    OP No.2 further contends that, all the above persons including the complainant have constructed residential RCC house in agricultural land without conversion from the competent revenue department and thereby complainant had violated the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

 

(c)    Further OP No.2 submitted that, on 04.09.2014 as per complainant’s requisition he opted for power supply and immediately after 02 days OP No.2 visited the spot and inspected and estimated the cost and expenditure to the tune of Rs.70,200/-.  The complainant has paid share amount of Rs.9,265/- on 18.09.2014 and remaining amount would be beared by OP No.2 for NJY (Nirantara Jyoti Yojane).  After receiving payment from the complainant, OP No.2 entrusted the entire work order to OP No.1 contractor and the said amount was paid with respect to the electric polls under IP (irrigation purpose) set.  Under the IP set OP No.2 has given power supply on 15.12.2015 to the complainant without any deficiency in service.  Thereby, the complainant has paid the consumer charges of the IP set feeder consumer charges.  Therefore the OP No.2 has given a permanent NJY (Nirantara Jyoti) to the complainant and thereby complainant has taken entire  benefit from OP No.2 from the date of his application and there is no any delay or mental harassment from OP No.2.  If complainant is having any grievance he has to seek damages, compensation from his contractor OP No.1 herein.  This complaint is filed with active collusion of OP No.1 to gain wrongfully from this OP No.2.  So contending, OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the above complaint with exemplary costs. 

 

04.   On 15.12.2016 counsel appearing for complainant has filed complainant’s affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.  On 14.02.2017 counsel appearing for OP No.2 filed OP No.2’s affidavit evidence by way examination-in-chief.  On 14.02.2017 counsel for complainant has submitted written arguments of the complainant.  On 06.03.2017 counsel for OP No.2 filed application Under Order 8 Rule 1(A) R/w section 151 of CPC with list of documents.  We have heard the oral arguments of both counsels appearing complainant and OP No.2.

 

05.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Ops?

(B)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for in the complaint?

(C)  What order?

06.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-          Partly affirmative as against OP

NOs. 2 to 4 and Negative as against OP No.1.

 

POINT (B):-          The complainant is held

entitled to both costs and compensation from OP Nos.2 to 4.

 

POINT (C):-          As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A) & (B):-

07.   On perusal of the pleadings and evidence produced by both complainant and OP No.2 it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had applied for Niranthara Jyoti Yojane power supply for his residential house by making payment. The contention of the complainant is that, the complainant had applied for Nirantara Jyoti Scheme and paid an amount of Rs.22,000/- to the OP No.1 on 18.09.2013.  In spite of several approaches made by the complainant the Ops had not given electricity supply under Nirantara Jyoti Scheme to his residential house.  Per contra, the OP No.2 submitted that, after receiving the requisition from the complainant on 04.09.2014, he visited the spot and inspected and estimated the cost and expenditure to the tune of Rs.70,200/-.  The complainant had paid his share amount of Rs.9,265/- on 18.09.2014 and the remaining amount was beared by the OP No.2.  The OP No.2 further submitted that, after receiving payment from the complainant, the OP No.2 entrusted entire work to the OP No.1 contractor.  After installation of IP set by the OP No.1, OP No.2 had given Niranthara Jyothi power supply on 06.12.2016. 

 

08.   Admittedly the complainant had paid Rs.9,265/- on 18.09.2014 and in spite of receiving the said amount the OP No.2 failed to give Niranthara Jyothi power supply to the complainant’s residential house, constrained by the said act of the Ops the complainant after knocking the doors of this Hon’ble Forum, OP No.2 come forward and gave Niranthara Jyothi power supply to complainant’s house.  The complainant had approached this Forum on 16.09.2016 for Niranthara Jyothi Yojane electricity connection.  The OP No.2 had given power supply under Nirantara Jyothi Yojane to the complainant’s residential house on 06.12.2016.  Hence it clearly shows that, there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  The OP Nos.2 to 4 being a statutory body after accepting the amount from the complainant for electricity supply under Nirantara Jyothi Yojane is duty bound to give power supply under Nirantara Jyothi Yojane,but Ops have made the complainant to run from pillar to pillar.  Hence the complainant is entitled for costs and compensation of Rs.5,000/-.  Further the complainant has not produced any document to show that, the OP No.1 has received the amount of Rs.22,000/-.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and accordingly we answered issue (A) partly affirmative and issue (B) partly affirmative.

 

POINT (C)

08.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint is Allowed-in-part as against OP No.s.2 to 4 and dismissed as against OP No.1.

02.   The OP Nos.2 to 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation costs.

03.   The OP Nos.2 to 4 are further directed to comply the above said order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

04.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 21^st DAY OF MARCH 2017)

 

 

MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT