BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SMT.S.SANDHYA RANI,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 01 OF 2018
Between:
Pillutla Madhu @ Malsoor S/o Saidulu, Aged: 50 years,
Occ: Business, R/o Huzurnagar Village and Mandal,
Suryapet District.
…COMPLAINANT.
AND
1. Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSCPDCL, Nalgonda.
2. Divisional Engineer/Operation, TSCPDCL, Huzurnagar Village and
Mandal, Suryapet District.
3. Assistant Engineer/Operation, TSCPDCL, Chilkur Village and
Mandal, Suryapet District.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Smt.V.Aparna, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri A.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SMT.S.SANDHYA RANI, FEMALE MEMBER
1. The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay the deposited amount of Rs.70,868/- for installation charges of 16 KV transformer along with accrued interest thereon from 27/02/2013 till the date of realization and any other relief or reliefs.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant is the pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land measuring Ac.0-23 guntas in Sy.No.976/2, situated at
Contd…2
-2-
Seetharampuram village of Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District. The Complainant is intending to establish a poultry farm in the above said land under the name and style of “M/s Madhu Sai Poultry Farm”, and he had obtained all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities by paying necessary fee. The Complainant submitted an application to the Opposite Party No.3 for grant of 16 KV transformer and the said application has been forwarded to the Opposite Party No.1 for approval. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 granted 16 KV transformer, vide Lr.No.SE/OP/NLG/Comml/F/D.No.1009/12, dated 30/06/2012, directing the Complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.70,868/- towards installation charges of 16KV transformer. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.70,868/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.089398, dated 27/02/2013 on the name of the Opposite Party No.2. After depositing the said Demand Draft, the Complainant came to know that the Government is not permitting to grant 16 KV transformers. Having come to know about the same on 31/10/2016, the Complainant submitted an application to the Opposite Party No.3 for grant of 25 KV transformer instead of 16 KV transformer as the Electricity Department has already sanctioned him 16 KV transformer stating that he is ready to deposit the balance necessary fee. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties several times for grant of 25 KV transformer, but they have dodged and postponing the same on one pretext or the other by making all false promises. The Complainant got issued a legal notice, dated 30/10/2017 to the Opposite Parties demanding to sanction 25 KV transformer to the Complainant within seven days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. In spite of receiving the legal notice, the Opposite Parties failed to sanction 25 KV transformer. Due to delay in
Contd…3
-3-
installation of the transformer, the Complainant could not establish the poultry farm, for which he suffered financial loss and mental agony as he spent huge amounts for the purpose of establishing the poultry farm. He also availed bank loan and the bank authorities expressed that they will cancel the bank loan in the event of lack of proper power supply. The Opposite Parties failed to install 25 KV transformer in spite of depositing the amount of Rs.70,868/-. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, as such the Complainant filed this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party No.3 filed written version denying all the averments of the complaint. The Complainant submitted application for sanction of 16 KV transformer in the year 2012 and the same was sanctioned after estimation and issued demand notice to him to deposit 10% of the cost of the estimation and to execute 11 KV line work. The Complainant without carrying out the 11 KV line work, even after lapse of four years, requested to sanction 25 KV transformer on phone without submitting written application. The Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.70,868/- by way of Demand Draft is not fulfillment of demand notice. The Complainant has first to get 11 KV line works executed as per the estimate by engaging a licensed contractor by himself under the supervision of TSSPDCL. The Complainant is not potential user of service as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that sanction of 25 KV transformer is on payment of necessary charges and execution of necessary line work by a licensed contractor. The Complainant submitted application for sanction of 16 KV transformer for establishing a firm at his agricultural lands in Sy.No.976/2 at
Contd…4
-4-
Seetharampuram village of Chilkur Mandal to the Opposite Party No.3, who in turn forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2 for sanction. The Opposite Party No.2 has estimated vide No.E/2012/04/001 and submitted to the Opposite Party No.1 for according turnkey permission. The Opposite Party No.1 has accorded turnkey permission for 16 KV transformer by his Letter No.SE/OP/NLG/Comml/F.No./D.No. 1009/2012, dated 30/06/2012. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.2 issued demand notice to the Complainant to deposit 10% of the cost of the estimate towards supervision charges, development charges, cost of 16 IVA DTR, security involving by himself duly purchasing the 11 KV line materials by engaging a licensed contractor by himself under the supervision of TSSPDCL officials. The Complainant deposited Demand Draft No.089393, dated 27/02/2013 for Rs.70,868/- at Consumer Service Centre, Kodad on 21/08/2013 after a gap of more than one year and six months. The Complainant neither engaged licensed contractor for carrying out the execution work of 11 KV line work nor purchased 11 KV line material. As per the Departmental rules and Etiquette the Complainant has to submit the original bills of purchasing 11 KV line materials to the Department and then the Department will issue work order for carrying the execution work under the supervision. The Complainant did not submit the bills to release the work order. The Complainant without carrying the 11 KV line work, has made a representation on phone to the Chilkur Sub-Station for sanction of 25 KV transformer instead of 16 KV transformer and he would pay the difference of cost on 31/10/2016 after a gap of more than three years of deposit of demand draft. The Sub-Station, Chilkur informed the Complainant to complete the work of 11 KV line as per the estimate and submit the original bills of purchasing of material to
Contd…5
-5-
release the work order, but the Complainant has not fulfilled any of the assigned work. The Complainant without carrying out the 11 KV transformer work and not submitted original bills of purchase of material, requested to change the transformer from 16 KV to 25 KV in the month of October, 2016 after a gap of more than three years. The Complainant even till today has not submitted original bills of purchasing material and engaging licensed contractor to carry out the installation of 11 KV line. The Opposite Parties denied the allegations of the Complainant that they have caused mental agony and that the Complainant is under deep shock. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. If the Complainant had completed 11 KV line work by engaging licensed contractor and submitting original purchasing of 11 KV line material, the work orders could have been issued to the Complainant for establishing the transformer. The entire negligence is on the part of the Complainant himself. Hence, the Opposite Parties are not liable for any claim and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. The written version filed by the Opposite Party No.3 was adopted by Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 by filing a memo on 09/11/2018.
5. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed additional written version and submitted that the amendment carried out by the Complainant is not maintainable.
6. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-15. The Opposite Party No.3 filed his affidavit and marked Ex.B-1 on behalf of the Opposite Parties, and also filed Written Arguments.
Contd…6
-6-
7. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the deposit amount
of Rs.70,868/- and compensation as prayed for?
3) If so, to what extent?
8. POINT No.1:
The Complainant is the pattedar and possessor of the agricultural land measuring Ac.0-23 guntas in Sy.No.976/2, situated at Seetharampuram village of Chilkur Mandal, Suryapet District, vide Exs.A-1 and A-2. The Complainant intend to establish a poultry farm in the above said land under the name and style of “M/s Madhu Sai Poultry Farm”, and he had obtained all necessary permissions from the concerned authorities by paying necessary fee. The Complainant obtained the permission from the Gram Panchayath, Seetharampuram, vide Ex.A-3, dated 02/05/2012. The Complainant also got No-Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayath, Seetharampuram of Chilkur Mandal, vide Ex.A-4, dated 04/05/2012. The Complainant submitted an application to the Opposite Party No.3 for grant of 16 KV transformer and the said application has been forwarded to the Opposite Party No.1 for approval. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1, vide Ex.A-5 granted 16 KV transformer, vide Lr.No.SE/OP/NLG/Comml/F/D.No.1009/12, dated 30/06/2012, directing the Complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.70,868/- towards installation charges of 16KV transformer. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.70,868/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.089398, dated 27/02/2013 on the name of the Opposite Party No.2, vide Ex.A-6. After depositing the said Demand Draft, the Complainant came to know that the Government is not
Contd…7
-7-
permitting to grant 16 KV transformers. On 31/10/2016, the Complainant submitted an application to the Opposite Party No.3 vide Ex.A-7 for grant of 25 KV transformer instead of 16 KV transformer and that he is ready to deposit the balance necessary fee. The Complainant approached the Opposite Parties several times for grant of 25 KV transformer, but they have dodged and postponing the same on one pretext or the other by making all false promises. The Complainant got issued a legal notice, vide Ex.A-8 dated 30/10/2017 to the Opposite Parties demanding them to sanction 25 KV transformer to the Complainant within seven days from the date of receipt of the legal notice, but the Opposite Parties did not give any reply to the said legal notice. Due to delay in installation of the transformer, the Complainant could not establish the poultry farm, for which he suffered financial loss and mental agony as he spent huge amounts for the purpose of establishing the poultry farm. The Complainant also availed bank loan and the bank authorities informed him that they would cancel the bank loan in the event of lack of proper power supply. The Complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.70,868/- as requested by the Opposite Parties, for installation of 16 KV transformer, but as there was no sanction of 16 KV transformer, the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties vide Ex.A-7 to sanction 25 KV transformer and that he is ready to deposit the balance amount and also material and charges towards the installation of the same, but the Opposite Parties failed to sanction 25 KV transformer and expressed their inability stating that the Complainant failed to submit the original bills. The Complainant waited for three years for the installation of 25 KV transformer to establish the poultry farm for his
Contd…8
-8-
livelihood, but the Opposite Parties failed to render the service and negligently failed to establish the 25 KV transformer for establishing the poultry farm. In spite of depositing the amount of Rs.70,868/- towards the installation of 16 KV transformer and in spite of his request for changing of 16 KV transformer to 25 KV transformer and his willingness towards the payment of the balance amount, the Opposite Parties failed to fulfill the request of the Complainant and failed to install 25 KV transformer. Therefore, we of the opinion that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
9. The Complainant relied his case on the decision reported in II (2016) CPJ 240 (NC) and also in II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC). The said citations are rightly applicable to the present complaint and the points raised by the Opposite Parties in the present complaint, have been appropriately answered in the said citations.
10. POINTS No.2 & 3:
The Complainant on the directions of the Opposite Parties deposited an amount of Rs.70,868/- for the installation of 16 KV transformer and further as the Opposite Parties not changed the transformer from 16 KV to 25 KV nor installed the same and kept the deposited amount with them, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are liable to refund the deposited amount of Rs.70,868/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization and Rs.2,000/- towards costs to the Complainant.
Contd…9
-9-
In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to pay to the Complainant, a sum of Rs.70,868/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Eight only) towards deposited amount for installation of 16 KV transformer with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint, i.e. 05/01/2018 till realization and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 23rd day of January, 2020.
FEMALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. Affidavit of Opposite Party No.3.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1: Dt.08/06/2016 Original Pattadar Adangal/Pahani copy.
Ex.A-2: Dt.17/08/2017 Original ROR 1-B.
Ex.A-3 Dt.02/05/2012 Original Permission issued by Gram
Panchayath, Seetharampuram.
Ex.A-4 Dt.04/05/2012 Original No-Objection Certificate,
issued by Gram Panchayath,
Seetharampuram.
Ex.A-5 Dt.30/06/2012 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex.A-6 Dt.27/02/2013 Xerox copy of DD bearing No.089398,
for Rs.70,868/-.
Ex.A-7 Dt.31/10/2016 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Complainant to the Opposite Party No.3.
Ex.A-8 Dt.30/10/2017 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel for
the Complainant to the Opposite Parties.
Contd…10
-10-
Ex.A-9 Dt.31/10/2017 Postal Receipts (3 Nos.).
Ex.A-10 Dt.01/11/2017 Acknowledgement Card of Opp.Party No.1.
Ex.A-11 Dt.01/11/2017 Acknowledgement Card of Opp.Party No.2.
Ex.A-12 Plan showing the Proposed Construction of
Poultry Farm.
Ex.A-13 Dt.28/03/2017 Xerox copy of House Tax Receipt for the
Year 2016/2017.
Ex.A-14 Xerox copy of House Tax Receipt for the
Year 2012.
Ex.A-15 Dt.16/07/2016 Xerox copy of House Tax Receipt for the
Year 2014-15, 2015-16.
For Opposite Parties No.1 to 3:
Ex.B-1 Dt.30/06/2012 Xerox copy of letter addressed by the
Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
