This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 18-11-2008 in the presence of Sri.T.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of Sri. G.Harender Reddy, Advocate for the opposite parties ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant and his late father having land to an extent of Ac.5-00gts out of Sy.No.1003/1/2, situated at Dammapeta Village and Mandal of Khammam District and in their field there was service connection in name of the father of the complainant during the year 1997 vide service connection No.914, which was connected through the 11K.V. Line, passing through the fields of the complainant and his father for the water supply through motor pump. Since the time of connection there was no default at any point of time in payment of consumption charges . The complainant and his father used to irrigate the land by raising sugarcane crop and other vegitable crops and used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum.
3. In the month of August, 2005 without giving any notice, the opposite parties unilaterally disconnected the power supply from the poles to the service of the father of the complainant. The said fact was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and inspite of request there was no restoration of power supply and due to this the crops raised in the field were drying, the father of the complainant made written representation to the opposite parties as well as the Hon’ble Minister of Electricity and the Chief Minister, Government of Andhra Pradesh, since the month of January, 2006 to till the month of May, 2006. Instead of it the opposite parties did not restore the power supply to the above service connection. Having seen the damage to the crop and having suffered with monitory loss in the investment and returns, the father of the complainant by name Late Pentaiah Chary suffered with mental agony and died on 3-11-2006 with such problems. Hence this complaint. The complainant is claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss crop and in the cause of death of father of the complainant.
4. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.95,000/- towards damages and loss of crop and causing the death of father of the complainant by the opposite parties and to award costs of the complaint for Rs.5,000/- and to grant any other relief.
5. The complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:
Ex A1: Xerox copy of Pattadhar pass book of father of the complainant. Ex A2: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No-1, dated 24-1-06. Ex A3:Xerox copy of letter addressed to the DE, Sathupalli, dated 7-2-06.Ex A4: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No-3, dated 26-4-06. Ex A5:Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Ministry of Electricity, dated 26-4-06. Ex A6:Xerox copy of addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, dated 26-4-06. Ex A7: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Ministry of Electricity, dated 9-5-06. Ex A8: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, dated 9-5-06. ExA9: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Hon’ble C.M.D, A.P.N.P.D.C.L, dated 9-5-06. Ex A10:Bunch of courier receipts No.7 Ex A11: Electricity charges Rs.506/- for the service connection No.914, dated 31-1-06. Ex A12: 2 photos.
6. The opposite party filed the following counter:
It is submitted that the complainant is not the Consumer to the opposite parties and as such the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. It is false to say that the complainant and his father used to irrigate the land by raising Sugarcane crop and vegitable crops and used to earn Rs.50,000/- per annum. It is false to say that the opposite parties disconnected the power supply in the month of August, 2005 and they failed to restore the power supply and due to this crops raised in the field were drying and since the month of January, 2006 to till the month of May, 2006 his father made many representations to authorities and due to such mental agony his father died on 3-11-2006 etc., It is false to say that due to loss of damage of crops and in the cause of death of his father the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The father of the complainant was utilizing 7.5HP motor instead of 5HP sanctioned load. Opposite party No-1 personally visited and verified the service and issued notice to pay development charges and security deposit for excess load, but the father of the complainant did not pay the charges for additional load. Hence opposite party No-1 instructed the line man to disconnect the service on 18-1-2006. At that time the father of the complainant was not utilizing the motor as the watering of the crop has been completed. Again on 22-1-2006 the service connection was reconnected on the request of the father of the complainant that he would pay the development charges and security deposit within a week.
Further the Chairperson, Consumer Grievences Redressal Forum, Warangal also addressed a letter to the father of the complainant on 31-7-2006 advising the complainant to pay additional load charges for regularization of additional load as per the departmental rules.
One Sri.K.Venkateswar Rao had taken land father of the complainant on lease for two years through a lease deed dated 28-11-2003. That in the month of December, 2005 after completion of yielding of sugar cane, somebody had set fire on the field, due to which the water pipes in the field were burnt, then the father of the complainant by making allegation on K.Venkateswar Rao put a Gram Panchayat, Dammapeta and taken Rs.2,500/- damages. Since the month of December, 2005 the father complainant did not raise any crop much less Sugarcane crop.
Hence, it is prayed the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
7. Opposite party filed the following documents:
Ex B1: A letter addressed to the A.E. by one K.Venkatesear Rao, Dammapeta, dated 6-5-06. Ex B2: A letter addressed to A.E. by one K.Venkatesear Rao, Dammapeta Ex B3: Xerox copy of lease agreement between K.Venkateswar Rao and K.Pentaich chary. Ex B4: A letter addressed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Sathupalli to the Superintending engineer, Khammam.
8. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for?
9. It is the contention of the complainant that he and his father having land to an extent of Ac.5-00gts in Sy.No.1003/1/2 situated at Dammapeta Village and there was service connection in the name of his father since1997 vide service connection No.914, which was connected through the 11K.V. line. He and his father paying the consumer charges regularly. The complainant and his father used to irrigate the land by raising sugarcane crop and other vegitable crops and used to Rs.50,000/- per annum.
10. In the month of August,2005 the opposite parties have not given any notice disconnected the service connection of the father of the complainant. This fact brought to the notice of the opposite parties, and the chief Minister but the opposite parties did not restore the connection of the father of the complainant due to whcih crop loss occurred and the father of the complainant suffered with mental agony and died on 3-11-2006. Hence this complaint and claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of crop and death of his father.
11. For this the contentions of the opposite parties are that the father of the complainant having services connection No.914 and he was utilizing the 7.5HP motor instead of 5 HP service line. The opposite party No-1 personally visited and verified on the services on the complainant. And he was issued notice to pay developmental charges and security deposit within a week. But the father of the complainant did not pay the charges of the additional load. Hence the opposite party No-1instructed the linemen to disconnect the service connection on 18-1-06. However the same was restored again on 22-1-06 as the father of the complainant promise to pay the developmental charges and security deposit within a week.
12. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant as well as opposite parties. It is a fact that the father of the complainant is having land to an extent of Ac.5-00gts in Sy.No.1003/1/2. It is also fact that the father of the complainant is having service connection vide No.914 as per Ex A2, dated 24-1-06. The father of the complainant wrote a letter to Assistant Engineer, Dammapeta stating that he has service connection 914 and the electricity authorities installed a new transform HTVT and at that time to the service connection of the complainant which was on L.T line and those zumpers were not properly connected by electricity people. Hence the electricity is not properly supplied to the service connection of the complainant. This letter revealed that the opposite parties did not disconnect the service connection of the complainant. This was also corroborated by Ex A3. At the first time on 26-4-06 as per Ex A4 the complainant stated that the department employees disconnected the power of the complainant without notice from August, 2005 onwards. The complainant did not file any documents to say that he and his father have cultivated sugar cane crop and vegetables from the year, August, 2005 and due to non supply of the electricity the crop was dried and caused loss of Rs.50,000/- towards crop loss.
13. The complainant did not file any documents to show that the father of the complainant died on 3-11-2006 and died due to loss of crop in00000 00his fields.
14. We have also perused the documents filed by the opposite parties marked as Ex.B.4 in which it is stated that the father of the complainant to his service connection No.914, was utilizing 7.5 HP motor instead of 5 HP sanctioned load and that the Assistant Engineer personally verified the service and issued the notice to pay the developmental charges and security deposit for excess load, but the father of the complainant did not pay the charges and it was instructed to disconnect the service on 18-1-2006, however on 22-1-2006 his service connection was reconnected on the request of the father of the complainant that he would pay the charges within a week.
15. The opposite party also relied on two decisions reported in III (2005) CPJ 189, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Mr.D.Karforma & Mrs.S.Majumder, Memebrs WBSEB, Appellant Vs. Prabir Ranjan Dutta, Respondent, S.C.case No.436/A of 2003 decided on 3-1-2005.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Electricity bills inflated – Not rectified on requests – Complaint allowed by Forum – Hence appeal – Contention, complainant not consumer – Complainant’s father was recorded consumer under WBSEB – Complainant is occupier of premises, but not consumer – No privity of contract between him and WBSEB – Order allowing complaint, set aside – Directions give , Result: Appeal allowed.
IV (2003) CPJ 57 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi , Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member; Mrs.Rajya lakshmi Rao and Mr.B.K.Taimni, members, in between Ashok Kumar , petitioner, Vs. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd., & Another, Respondents, Revision petitioner No.2500 of 2003 – Decided on 2-9-2003.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Electricity – Agriculture land purchased along with tube well run by electricity – Connection still in the name of old land holder – Complainant has no locus to apply for reduction of load – Complainant not consumer – Complaint rightly dismissed by State Commission.
Held: We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Undisputed facts of the case are that the electric connection is still in the name of the late father of the complaint. Thus, it is evident that there was no contract between the parties, as the electric connection does not stand in his name. In the absence of any agreement between the parties, the complainant cannot be called a consumer.
As per the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the complainant did not inform Board about the death of his father neither applied for insertion of his name as consumer. The complainant is occupier of premises, but not consumer, no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties. In the absence of any agreement between the parties the complainant cannot be called a consumer. Hence this complaint has no merits and the complainant fails to prove any case against the opposite parties. The complaint is liable for dismissal. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.
16. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 25th day of November, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Ex A1: Xerox copy of Pattadhar pass book of father of the complainant.
Ex A2: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No-1, dated 24-1-06.
Ex A3:Xerox copy of letter addressed to the DE, Sathupalli, dated 7-2-06.
Ex A4: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No-3, dated 26-4-06.
Ex A5:Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Ministry of Electricity, dated 26-4-06.
Ex A6:Xerox copy of addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, dated 26-4-06.
Ex A7: Xerox copy of letter addressed to the Ministry of Electricity, dated 9-5-06.
Ex A8: Xerox copy of addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, dated 9-5-06.
ExA9: Xerox copy of addressed to the Hon’ble C.M.D, A.P.N.P.D.C.L, dated 9-5-06.
Ex A10:Bunch of courier receipts No.7
Ex A11: Electricity charges Rs.506/- for the service connection No.914, dated 31-1-06. Ex A12: 2 photos.
Opposite parties
Ex B1: A letter addressed to the A.E. by one K.Venkatesear Rao, Dammapeta, dated 6-5-06.
Ex B2: A letter addressed A.E. by one K.Venkatesear Rao, Dammapeta
Ex B3: Xerox copy of lease agreement between K.Venkateswar Rao and K.Pentaich chary.
Ex B4: A letter addressed by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Sathupalli to the Superintending engineer, Khammam
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
