BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 270/2000 Filed on 19/05/2000

Dated: 31..12..2010

Complainant:

B. Sadanandan, Sabithalayam, Thannivila, Vedivachancoil P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. K.R. Ravisankar)

Opposite parties:

1. Sub Engineer, Electricity Section Office, Naruvamoodu.

2. Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Thempamoottam, Balaramapuram.

3. Chairman, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram,

(By Advs. K.P. Renadive & Rajesh. R)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30..03..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2010, the Forum on 31..12..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. NMD 1477, that the electricity under the said connection is used for agricultural purpose, that for working a pump set of 10HP to pump water from a well to irrigate 4 acres of agricultural land, that the pump set was installed in 1982 under the agricultural special scheme with the loan of Rural Agricultural Land Mortgage Bank, Neyyattinkara, that the electrical charges for agricultural purpose is fully subsidised by the State Government, that using the pump set the complainant cultivates plantain, coconut, pepper, yam and Colocasia etc..., that electrical charge is fixed after periodical inspection by the opposite parties, that complainant remitted the entire charges for the year 2000 in advance on 5/11/1999, that without giving any notice arbitrarily 1^st opposite party disconnected the electricity supply to the said connection on 15/02/2000, that thereafter 1^st opposite party issued two bills for Rs.605/- and Rs. 1029/- wherein the last date for remittance is noted as 18/2/2000, that opposite party disconnected the said connection before the last date is expired, that due to the said disconnection by the opposite parties, complainant has sustained a loss of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to restore the electricity connection and pay a compensation of Rs. 4,68,500/- with interest.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that the connection vide consumer No.1477 stands effected in the name of Sri. S. Rajendran, that complainant has no locus standi to lodge the instant complainant against the opposite parties, that there is no contractual relationship between the opposite parties and the complainant, that the above said connection was effected for agricultural purpose with a connected load of 3 HP, that he was making payment provisionally as per the Provisional Invoice Card, that for regularising the consumer's actual consumption two additional bills were issued for Rs. 605/- and for Rs. 1,029/-, that consumer had defaulted both the bills, physical disconnection of the supply was not made so far, that the last date fixed for the payment of 1^st additional bill was 18/2/2000, that so far the supply to consumer No.1477 has not been disconnected for non-payment of energy charges and as such there is no need to compensate the consumer for the alleged loss in agriculture. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    

2. Whether opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P10 and Ext. C1. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has marked as Exts. D1 & D2.

4. Points (i) & (ii) : The very case of the complainant is that the connection to consumer No.1477 is meant for agricultural purpose, that the water for agriculture was irrigated using a pump set from a large well situated in the land, that the said pump set was working with the electricity provided by the opposite parties. It has been the case of the complainant that using the pump set he has been irrigating 4 acres of land in Sy.No.14/1A wherein he cultivates various agricultural products like plantain, coconut, pepper, Colocasia, Yam etc..., that daily irrigation of water was absolutely necessary for the cultivation of the said products. It has also been the case of the complainant that the said pump set was installed under Agricultural Special Scheme with loan of the Rural Agricultural Land Mortgage Bank, Neyyattinkara. It has also been the case of the complainant that as per the special Order the electrical supply for agricultural purpose should not be disconnected under any circumstances, that the electrical charges for agricultural purpose are fully subsidised by the State Government. The stands of the opposite party is that the connection to consumer No.1477 stands registered in the name of Sri. S. Rajendran and that complainant is not a registered consumer. According to opposite parties, complainant has made advance payments as per Provisional Invoice Card system and two additional bills were issued by opposite parties for regularising the consumer's actual consumption, that as per additional bill No. 1 additional demand is for Rs.605/- while in additional bill No.2 additional demand is for Rs. 1,029/-, that in the first bill the last date was 18/2/2000, but in the later bill the last date was 18/4/2000. It has been contended by opposite parties that the supply to consumer No.1477 has not been disconnected for non-payment of energy charges as alleged in the complaint. According to opposite parties on 01/04/2000 there was a complaint regarding supply failure and the same was rectified on the very same day itself which has no relation whatsoever with the impugned demands. Ext. P1 is the Provisional Invoice Card. On perusal of Ext. P1 tariff is under LT V and monthly charge to be remitted is Rs. 73/- per month. Ext. P2 is the receipt for Rs. 810/- issued by opposite parties for the period from 1/2000 to 12/2000. Ext. P3 is the receipt for Rs.566/- for the period from 6/99 to 12/99. Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter addressed to Asstt. Executive Engineer, Balaramapuram. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt. Ext. P6 is the acknowledgment card. Ext. P7 is the attested copy of the Pattaya Deed on 29/01/1997 executed by Sri. Rajendran in favour of Sri. Sadanandan. On perusal of Ext. P7 it is seen stated that the property mentioned therein with agricultural connection to consumer No.1477 installed therein was delivered to the complainant for 7 years from the date of execution. Ext. P8 is the adjustment invoice issued by opposite parties for Rs. 605/- to consumer No.1477. Ext. P9 is the adjustment invoice for Rs.1,029/- issued by opposite parties to consumer No.1477. As per Ext. P8 adjustment invoice is for the period from 9/97 to 3/98 whereas adjustment invoice as per Ext. P9 is for the period from 4/98 to 3/2000. Ext. P1 series consists of a bill dated 28/11/2000 – 2 receipts for Rs. 261/- & 268/- issued by opposite parties. Ext. C1 is the Commission Report. As per Advocate Commission Report to ascertain the agricultural loss assistance of an Agricultural Officer is required. Commissioner has not assessed agricultural loss as per Ext. C1 Report. Further opposite party has produced 2 documents. Ext. D1 is the copy of the disconnection register. The very stand of the opposite party is that there was a complaint dated 01/04/2000 regarding supply failure and this was rectified on the very same day itself, that the said failure was due to technical reasons and this has no relation with the impugned demands. Ext. D1 disconnection register shows that there was no supply to consumer No.1477 on 01/04/2000. It is also seen stated in Ext. D1 disconnection register that the said supply failure was due to technical reasons which was rectified on that day itself. Ext. D2 is the copy of the consumer register. As per Ext. D2 connection to consumer No.1477 stands in the name of Sri. S. Rajendran. By virtue of Ext. P7 Pattaya Deed it is crystal clear that complainant has used electricity with the consent of Mr. Rajendran, as such complainant is a beneficiary thereby complainant has locus standi to lodge this complaint. It is pertinent to point out that the statement made by the opposite parties that complainant's case is that the supply was disconnected on 15/2/2000 though the last date of payment for disconnection was 18/2/2000, while the stand of the opposite parties that so far the supply to consumer No.1477 has not been disconnected for non-payment of energy charges, that what actually happened in this case was that there was a complaint on 01/04/2000 regarding supply failure and which was rectified on the very same day itself and the supply failure was due to technical reasons which has no relation with the impugned demands but to counter act that complainant has not adduced evidence. Further as per Ext. C1 Commissioner has reported the assistance of the Agricultural Officer to ascertain the loss, if any, no steps taken by the complainant to determine the real economic loss, if any, from the action of the opposite parties, since opposite party has averred in their version that there was no disconnection on 15/2/2000 as alleged in the complaint so far the supply to consumer has not been disconnected for non-payment of energy charges. Complainant has not denied the same in his affidavit nor has he adduced evidence to prove otherwise. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that complainant has not established his case against opposite parties and hence complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of December, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER .

ad.

O.P.No.270/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sadanandan

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Provisional Invoice Card

P2 : Receipt for Rs.810/- issued by opposite parties for the period from 1/2000 to 12/2000

P3 : Receipt for Rs.566/- for the period from 6/99 to 12/99.

P4 : Copy of the letter addressed to Asst. Executive Engineer, Balaramapuram.

P5 : The Postal receipt

P6 : The acknowledgement card

P7 : The agreement

P8 : The adjustment invoice issued by opposite parties for Rs.605/- to Consumer No.1477.

P9 : The adjustment invoice for Rs.1029/- issued by opposite parties to consumer No.1477.

P10 : Copy of bill and receipt.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of the disconnection register

D2 : Copy of the Consumer Register.

V. Court witness : NIL

VI. Court Ext:

C1 : Commission Report

PRESIDENT