BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Monday  the 11^th day of October , 2010

C.C.No 56/09

Between:

M.Jagadeeswar Reddy, S/o Bali Reddy,

    R/o D.No.251, Gospadu village & Mandal, Kurnool District-518 595.                     …Complainant

-Vs-

1.  State represented by District Collector,

    D.No.4-61, Collectors Complex, Kurnool-518 002.

2.  The Assistant Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C. Limited,

    D.No.7-515, Sirivella, Kurnool District-518 563.

3.  The Assistant Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL,

    D.No.8-11-8, Allagadda, Kurnool District-518 543.

4.  The Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL,

    D.No.30/180, Tekke, Nandyal-518 501.

5.  The Superintending Engineer, APCPDCL,

    D.No.51-13, Bellary Road, Kurnool-518 003.                        …Opposite PartieS

           This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.R.Murali Krishna, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri.A.Chandramouleeswara Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.2 to 5 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 56/09

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- (towards loss of crop) and Rs.,25,152/- (towards rent of 3 oil engines) and a sum of Rs.30,000/-  towards mental agony  and interest at the rate of 12 Percent  Per Annum on Rs.(1,96,000/- Add Rs.25,152/- from December, 2007 to till date of realization and costs of complaint and such other relief and reliefs as the court deems fit and  proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant  is an agriculturist . He is having 10 Acs of land in Gospadu (Village). He got power supply to his land under agricultural service connection No. 569. He got 7.5 H.P motor pump set. The complainant is facing the problem of non getting of power supply properly. He is unable to raise the paddy crop. The complainant also gave registered notices to the OPs requesting them to supply power properly. The complainant lost his crop for the year 2006-2007. The complainant prepared the agricultural land of 10 Acs suitably to raise the paddy crop by sending more than Rs.1,00,000/- in June, 2006. The complainant raised paddy crop in the land on the promise given by the OPs. He purchased fertilizers and pesticides. Due to the non supply of required power there was partial failure of the paddy crop in the land of the complainant during the year 2006-2007. The yield of the paddy in Gospadu (M) is about 3,600 kgs per acre. The market price of each bag of paddy containing 75 kgs is Rs.700/- . The actual yield in 10 Acs is only up to 20 bags per acre. The total yield from 10 Acs is 200 bags. The shortage of yield is 280 bags. The cost of 280 bags of paddy at Rs.700/- is Rs.1,96,000/-. The complainant spent Rs.25,152/- for hiring 3 oil engines to supply water to his land because non supply of power by the OPs. The complainant sustained loss due to the negligence on the part of the OPs. The OPs have not taken any steps to supply the power properly to the complainant. There was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence the complaint.

3.     OP.No.1 remained ex-parte. OP.No.2 filed written version and the same is adopted by OPs 3 to 5. The 2^nd OP filed written version  stating that the complaint is not maintainable . On 30-08-2006 the complainant gave a letter for fixing additional transformer. OP.No.4 sanctioned for additional transformer. The complainant is owing more than 10 Acs of land. He has taken power connections for 7.5 HP motor. 7.5 HP motor is sufficient to wet the land of 2 Acs of 2.5 Acs only supply of water through 7.5 HP motor to 10 Acs of land is not at all possible. To wet the land of 10 Acs one has to 4 or 5 electric motors of 7.5 HP each. The OPs supplied power for 4 house in night time and 3 house during day time as per the Government directions. The complainant engaged oil engines to pump water, that he purchased fertilizers and pesticides and incurred huge amount is not correct. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is in the habit of filling false complaints. The complainant is not entitled to any claim. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.             

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A34 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 2 to 5 sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed. No documents are marked.

5.     The complainant and OPs 2 to 5 filed written arguments.  

6.     The points that arise for consideration are    

(i)     whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?

(ii)    whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(iii)    To what relief?

7. Points No.1 & 2 :-  Admittedly the complainant is having agricultural service connection No. 569 with 7.5 HP motor. The complainant is having 10 Acs of agriculture land at Gospadu (Village) of Gospadu (Mandal) is not under dispute. It is also admitted that the complainant has been raising the crops in his agriculture land by drawing water through his agricultural connection No. 569. It is also admitted that on 30-08-2006 the complainant gave a letter for fixing additional transformer. It is also not under dispute that the OP No. 4 sanctioned for additional transformer near the lands of the complainant. In Ex.A26 copy of the estimates of the SE, Kurnool it is mentioned that there was proposal for erection of 125 KVA additional transformer in Gospadu (Village) as existing transformer is over loaded.

8.     It is the case of the complainant that during the agriculture year 2006-2007 he raised  BPT 5204 variety of paddy crop in his land,  that there was no proper supply of power by the OPs and as a result he got yield of 20 bags per acre instead of 48 bags per acre. According to the complainant he got shortage of yield of 28 bags of paddy during the agriculture year 2006-2007. The complainant relied on Ex.A32 certificate issued by VRO (Gospadu) to show that he raised crop in his land during the agriculture year 2006-2007. In Ex.A32 certificate issued by the VRO it is clearly mentioned that the complainant  got 10 Acs of land in Gospadu (Village) and that he raised paddy crop in the said land during  the agriculture year 2006-2007 (fasli 1416). The complainant also relied on certificate issued by the Agricultural Market Committee , Nandyal to show that 1 bag of 75 kgs BPT -5204 paddy was selling at Rs. 700/-. Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no independent evidence on record to show that the complainant got only 200 bags of paddy during the agriculture year 2006-2007. The complainant did not choose to file the copy of the Adangal showing the yield from his land during the agriculture year 2006-2007 (fasli 1416). The complainant has not filed affidavit of the VRO to show that there was partial failure of the paddy crop in the land of the complainant during the agriculture year 2006-2007. Merely basing on the affidavit evidence of the complainant it can not be said that there was partial failure of the paddy crop in the land of the complainant during the agriculture year 2006-2007. There is also no material on record to show that the failure of the crop in the land of the complainant was due to non supply of power by OPs 2 to 5. The complainant did not give any explanation as to why he could not file the copy of the Adangal relating to his land for the fasli 1416, showing the yield got by him. No revenue record is produced by the complainant showing the actual yield got by the complainant during the falsi 1416.

9.     According to the complainant there was no proper supply of power to his pump set and that there was no good yield from the land. According to the OPs  that one 7.5 H.P  motor is not sufficient  to water the land  of 10 Acs and that the complainant  got only  one motor 7.5 H.P. Admittedly the complainant  got only 1 motor 7.5 H.P The OPs  also did not place any independent  evidence to show  that  one motor 7.5 HP is not sufficient to water 10 Acs of agriculture land. According to the Ops the power was supplied to agriculturists 4 hours  during night time and 3 hours during day time during the  relevant  period and that  there was no deficiency of service  on their part. The supply of electricity to the consumers depends on the availability of the power. Admittedly there is a shortage of power production in the State of A.P. The ops are not in a position to supply power through out day to agriculturist to water their lands. When there is a shortage of power appropriate Government will regulate the supply of power to house connections, agriculture connections and commercial connections. Merely because there was no power supply to the complainant throughout the day during the agriculture year 2006-2007 it can not be said there was deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The burden is on the complainant to show that there was no proper power supply and on account of the same there was partial failure of the crop in his land. As already stated the complainant failed to establish that there was shortage of yield from his land during the agriculture year 2006-2007.    No doubt the complainant must have spent some amount for purchase of fertilizers and pesticides and also for pumping of water by hiring the oil engines. It is not the case of the OPs that they supplied power to the complainant service connection through out the day during the agriculture year 2006-2007. Due to the shortage of the power the OPs supplied power to the agricultural connections during limited hours. The OPs are not in a position to supply power to agriculture connections throughout the day due to the shortage of the power. Therefore the OPs can not be blamed for non supply of power to the agriculture connection of the complainant throughout out the day.  We do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is therefore is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

10. Point No.3:  In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11^h day of October,  2010.

         Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT             

                    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:   Nil

         Sd/-                                                                                       Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :