CC Filed on 13.01.2009<br /> Disposed on 09.11.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 09th day of November 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 04/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> R. Munikrishnappa,<br /> S/o. Late Ramaiah,<br /> Aged about 67 years,<br /> Agriculturist,<br /> R/o. Chinnapura Village,<br /> Kasaba Hobli,<br /> Kolar Taluk.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. M. Manjunatha ) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Superintending Engineer,<br /> O & M, Kolar Circle, BESCOM,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Executive Engineer,<br /> BESCOM,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,<br /> Rural Circle, BESCOM,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.N. Nagaraja & others ) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant is an expert agriculturist is cultivating all commercial crops. He has got a borewell in Sy. No. 25 of Chinnapura Village and he cultivates land bearing Sy. Nos. 19/4, 16/1, 7/5 and 7/6 with the help of water drawn from the borewell situated in Sy. No. 25. The complainant invested huge amount for drawing water to his lands. The complainant applied under Own Your Transformer (OYT) scheme to obtain a transformer for his exclusive use for better supply of electricity to his borewell in the year 2005 and the OPs received Rs.33,930/- on 10.07.2006 towards the price of transformer and its establishment charge and installed a transformer near the borewell in Sy. No. 25. Thereafter the complainant is cultivating his land and getting high yield. The complainant planted cabbage crop to an extent of 3 acres 39 guntas in the month of August 2008 depending on the borewell water. In the month of September 2008 the OPs colluded with each other and gave illegal power supply to another borewell which was situated adjacent to the land bearing Sy. No. 25, for drawing electricity from the transformer which was installed in complainant’s land bearing Sy. No. 25. Due to that illegal power supply from the transformer owned by complainant, he suffered shortage of power for his borewell due to which the crops in his lands were badly affected. The complainant made complaints to OPs, but they failed to take any appropriate steps to disconnect the illegal connection. The complainant suffered loss of cabbage crop to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 15.10.2008 to OPs and in reply the OPs admitted the illegal connection. Further it is alleged that after receipt of legal notice the OPs disconnected the illegal connection, but it was too late and the crop was totally dried. Therefore the complainant has filed the present complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Counsel and filed their common version. They denied all the allegations made against OPs. They contended that after service of legal notice the OP Company visited the spot and made enquiry and found that no neighbouring land holder of complainant had taken any illegal electricity connection from his transformer and a spot mahazar was also done and the Officers of OP Company visited trice the spot and they did not find any illegal connection by any other land holder adjacent to the complainant’s land. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed his affidavit by way of evidence and filed documents. OP.3 filed the affidavit by way of evidence. The OPs did not file any documents. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> Point No.1: Whether there is deficiency in service by OPs?<br /> Point No.2: If so, to which reliefs the complainant is entitled to?<br /> Point No.3: To what order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the submissions of complainant our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The complainant paying the required amount for installing a transformer in Sy. No. 25 and thereafter a mini transformer being installed there for the exclusive use of complainant cannot be disputed. On 25.09.2008 the complainant gave representation to OP.3 alleging that from two days prior to the representation the concerned Lineman and Inspector colluded with the owner of adjacent land bearing Sy. No. 26 and gave illegal electricity connection to the borewell situated in Sy. No. 26 from the transformer of complainant and due to that illegal connection the complainant is suffering with lack of voltage for his borewell and his crops were being damaged due to lack of water. He also made similar representation on 29.09.2008 to OP.1. Subsequently he got issued the legal notice dated 15.10.2008 making similar allegations. In the reply dated 03.11.2008 to that legal notice it was stated that illegal connection was found and it was disconnected as soon as the complaint was received and still it was under disconnection. Therefore it is clear that there was illegal connection from the transformer of complainant to the neighbouring land. The allegations made in representation/complaint dated 25.09.2008 it was alleged that the Local Lineman and Inspector colluded and gave illegal connection. The reply given to the legal notice does not suggest whether any enquiry was made to find out whether Local Lineman had given illegal connection or not. On the other hand the reply to the legal notice shows that some person concerning OP Company had given the illegal connection. In reply notice it is stated “it was our illegal collection”. However in the version or in the evidence filed by OPs it was not specifically admitted that the illegal connection was given with the consent of OPs or its Officials. We think without the assistance of Local Lineman the connection could not have been given to the neighbouring land holder from the transformer of complainant. Therefore we believe the version of complainant regarding illegal connection given from the transformer of complainant to the neighbouring land holder. For the above reasons we hold Point No.1 in affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No. 2: The complainant stated that he planted cabbage crop on an extent of 3 acres 39 guntas in the month of August 2008, he noticed illegal connection two days prior to 25.09.2008 the date on which representation/ complaint was given to OP.3. The OPs contended that illegal connection was removed soonafter receipt of complaint. The complainant alleged that the illegal connection was removed only after issue of legal notice dated 15.10.2008. Reply notice dated 03.11.2008 was issued stating that illegal connection was removed soonafter receipt of complaint. It appears only after receipt of legal notice, action was taken, but it appears no action was taken on the complaint dated 25.09.2008. If really any action was taken soonafter the receipt of complaint dated 25.09.2008 that would have been intimated to complainant and some record would have been prepared to that effect. If that was the case there was no necessity for the complainant to issue legal notice. Therefore we can assume that nearly for one month and one week there was illegal connection from the transformer of complainant from 23.09.2008. <br /> <br /> There is no proper evidence to establish what was the shortfall of voltage of electricity to complainant’s borewell due to the existence of another illegal connection. In the legal notice it is stated that the complainant had grown cabbage crop on 7 acres of land, but in the complaint he stated that he had grown crops only on 3 acres 39 guntas. The complainant produced two photos showing the condition of cabbage crop, from which it is not possible to contend that entire crop was damaged. It is told that cabbage crop is 3-4 months crop. Therefore it appears the claim was exorbitant and the complainant has not established the loss suffered by him due to that illegal connection for a period of one month and one week. The R.T.C does not disclose the extent of crop grown. The complainant gave different versions regarding the extent of crop grown by him. The complainant failed to produce any document for purchasing the manure, etc., and for having sold the crop to ascertain the probable extent of the crop grown. From R.T.C it can be found that the total extent of land held by complainant comes to nearly 3 acres 34 guntas. For the above reasons we think the complainant has exaggerated the extent of crop grown by him. Therefore we think a sum of Rs.10,000/- may be awarded towards damages. Hence Point No.2 is held accordingly. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs shall pay Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) along with cost of Rs.1,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order. If OPs failed to pay the said amount within the said period the OPs shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs.10,000/- from the date of default till the date of realization. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 09th day of November 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />