Date of filing: 02-06-2014
Date of Disposal: 14-08-2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 14th day of August, 2015
C.C.NO.72/2014
Between:
Hidayathulla Khan
S/o Ismail Khan
Agriculturist,
r/o Thumukunta Village,
Hindupur Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Rural Hindupur Section,
A.P.C.P.D.C.L, V.D. Road,
Ananthapuramu District. … Opposite Party
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Jayarami Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri N.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - The complainant namely Hidayathulla Khan S/o Ismail Khan, Agriculturist, residing at Thumukunta Village, Hindupur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District has filed the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party i.e. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Rural Hindupur Section, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., V.D. Road, Hindupur, Ananthapuramu District with a prayer to direct the opposite party to provide regular service connection to the fields of the complainant, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.90,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint with the following brief allegations:
2. The complainant is having agricultural land in Sy.No.79-5 of Thumukunta Village limits and he dug bore-well in his fields for agricultural purpose. The complainant approached the then Engineer Jayababu for electricity connection and he advised the complainant to take commercial service. According to Jayababu’s advise and estimation, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- in the year 2008 to the said the then Engineer Jayababu towards the charges of 3 poles, wire and other electrical material with labour charges for the said electricity connection to the complainant’s fields. Though the amount was paid by the complainant, the Electricity Department has not provided electricity connection. But the then Engineer has not given any receipt to the complainant for that amount and promised him to give the electricity connection. The complainant submitted a representation to the opposite party on 09-05-2013 requesting the opposite party to install poles and give permanent electricity connection to his fields. After repeated requests, the Electricity Department advised the complainant to take service wire and take supply from the main transformer and later they will install poles and give regular connection to the complainant. Accordingly, the Electricity Department gave connection from the main transformer and allotted Service No.3036000645 of Thumukunta on 20-07-2009 and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,800/- towards consumption deposit. After giving service connection, the complainant has been paying electricity charges regularly up-to November, 2012. Due to aged ailments the complainant leased out his agricultural land to one P.Svia Reddy S/o Narasimha Reddy of Agram Village, Madakasira Mandal and the assistant of the complainant by name U.Srinivasulu has been paying the electricity charges to the Department since the date of lease. The said U.Srinivasulu is looking after the welfare of the complainant as the complainant is suffering from ailments. His assistant U.Srinivasulu made a representation under R.I. Act to the opposite party about the status of service connection. The opposite party disconnected the said service connection in the month of September, 2012 due to non-payment of C.C.Charges arrears of Rs.3,963/- and also there is no agreement prepared for the service and issued a letter to the lease-holder vide Lr.No.603/2013 dt.20-11-2013 instead of original owner with regard to disconnection of service connection. Instead of issuing regular connection, the Electricity Department disconnected the temporary connection and damaged the service connection and caused loss of earnings of the complainant though the complainant paid electrical charges regularly. Due to the act of the Department, the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony and there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the opposite party to provide regular service connection to the fields of the complainant, to grant an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.90,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint and grant such other relief or reliefs.
3. The opposite party has filed a counter denying the allegations of the complainant and further contended that the petition is bad and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party contended that the Department has released service of the complainant in the year 2009 July under Category-II for 6 K.W. and service No.645 upto 2012 the complainant has paid C.C.Charges. The complainant did not pay C.C.Charges and in the month of September, 2012 the service was disconnected due to non-payment of C.C. Charge, which was informed to the complainant through a letter. The allegation that the Department has not provided the regular connection to the complainant and the Department instead of issuing regular connection, the Electricity Department disconnected temporary connection and damaged the service wire and caused loss of the earnings of the complainant is not true. In the petition, it is very clearly admitted that the service of the petitioner was disconnected due to non-payment of charges. So, the question of regular and irregular service will not be there. The petitioner never paid any amount to the respondent and further the Department will give receipt for any amount that was received from the consumer. The petitioner alleged that he has paid Rs.40,000/- to one Assistant Engineer in the year 2008 but he kept quiet till 2014. From this it is very clear about the petitioner’s attitude. The petitioner approached this Forum with unclean and untenable grounds. Hence, the petition may be dismissed with costs in the interests of justice.
4. In order to establish the above rival contentions, both sides have filed evidence on affidavits.
Hidayathulla Khan, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit as PW1. In addition to the evidence on affidavit, the complainant has also placed reliance on the documents i.e. Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is copy of the representation submitted by the complainant to the opposite party dt.09-05-2013. Ex.A2 is Statement of Electricity Bill for the period November, 2008 to November, 2013. Ex.A3 is photo copy of representation under Right to Information Act made by U.Srinivasulu to the opposite party along-with counterfoil of I.P.O. Ex.A4 is letter issued by the opposite party to U.Srinivasulu in reply of Right to Information Act. Apart from that the complainant has got appointed Advocate-Commissioner and got inspected the fields of the complainant and in that connection the Advocate-Commissioner has filed his report along-with Photos, C.D. and rough plan.
On the other hand, Sri B.N.Vijaya Raju, A.D.E., Hindupur on behalf of the opposite party has filed evidence on affidavit as RW1, but no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
Heard both sides.
5. Now the points that arise for determination are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
Party in providing regular service connection to the fields of the
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amount as prayed
for ?
- To what relief ?
6. POINT NO.1 - The version of the complainant in this consumer complaint is that he has applied for service connection to his land in Sy.No.79-5 of Thumukunta Vilalge limits for his bore-well. For that purpose, he approached the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to one Jayababu the then Engineer of the opposite party towards the charges of 3 polices, wire and other electrical material with labour charges. But the said Jayababu has not issued any receipt to that extent. On the other hand not provided electricity connection. So only the present complaint.
7. On the other hand, the version of the opposite party is total denial of giving of Rs.40,000/- to one Jayababu the then Engineer of the opposite party for purchase of 3 Poles, wire and other electrical material . On the other hand, they have provided electricity service connection in the year 2009 itself with Service No.645. Due to non-payment of C.C.Charges, the service connection of the complainant was disconnected. So there is no question of giving regular and irregular service. In order to establish the above rival contentions, they have relied upon their respective evidence on affidavits.
8. According to the evidence on affidavits of the complainant – PW1 and the opposite party – RW1, it is an admitted fact that the service connection was provided to the complainant i.e. Service Connection No.645 in the year 2009 July.
9. Now the point for consideration in this case is that whether the above service connection No.645 was provided regularly by installing current poles and with proper wire connection by the opposite party?
10. In this regard, the evidence on affidavit of the complainant goes to show that he has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the then Engineer Jayababu of the opposite party towards charges of 3 poles, wire and other electrical material with labour charges for the said electricity connection to his fields. Though the amount was paid by him, the Electricity Department has not provided electricity connection. On his repeated requests, the Electricity Department advised him to take service wire and take supply from the main transformer and later they would install the poles and give him regular connection. Accordingly, the Electricity Department gave connection from the main transformer and allotted Service No.3036000645 of Thumukunta on 20-07-2009 and he paid a sum of Rs.4,800/- towards consumption deposit. After giving service connection, he has been paying electricity charges up-to November, 2012. In support of the above oral testimony of PW1, he relied upon the documents Ex.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is copy of the representation submitted by the complainant to the opposite party dt.09-05-2013. Ex.A2 is Statement of Electricity Bill for the period November, 2008 to November, 2013. Ex.A3 is photo copy of representation under Right to Information Act made by U.Srinivasulu to the opposite party alongwith counterfoil of I.P.O. Ex.A4 is letter issued by the opposite party to U.Srinivasulu in reply of Right to Information Act.
11. Further in his evidence PW1 deposed that “ in fact he has been paying the current bills regularly upto November, 2012. Thereafter, he has stopped payment of current bill only for the sake of protection of public life because without poles the current wires supplied by himself falling on the earth without support of the poles. Inspite of his repeated requests to the opposite party to install poles in support of the current wire they failed to do so for that reason he has stopped the payment of current bill. But he has paid entire amount towards current poles and wire to the opposite party in the year 2009 itself. At that time, the Assistant Engineer, Hindupur Rural was Jaibabu Naik. But he has not given any receipt to him for the said amount but he gave meter and current supply to his field and postponed to fix the poles and connecting the wire. As such there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, for which he is suffering a lot. “ In this context, he was cross-examined by the opposite party. In the cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that “ he has no landed property for agriculture. The witness added that but he has applied for current to his bore on the site for commercial purpose. His advocate might have wrongly mentioned in his chief affidavit as well as in his complaint that as if he has taken service connection for his agriculture fields and not for site. He has not given in writing to the officials of opposite party that to save the public life, he has stopped for payment of current bills. He denied the suggestion that he has not paid Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party at any time. So only he has no receipt with him to that extent and he is giving false evidence. PW1 admitted that the opposite party has given service No.645 to his meter in his site. The opposite party has issued Ex.A4 to him along-with computerized billing statement. He also denied the suggestion he has not paid Rs.40,000/- to the opposite party and he has to pay balance amount to the opposite party towards C.C.Charges as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and he is giving false evidence. “
12. The Advocate-Commissioner’s report goes to show that “ he has visited the warrant schedule property (complainant’s site) along-with the complainant and his counsel and on behalf of the opposite party one A.Veeranna, Lineman present at the time of execution of warrant and noted down the physical features and prepared rough plan showing the complainant’s room. He found that there is electricity connection vide Service Connection No.645. He found that there is no connection from the transformer on Eastern side to the Western side of the room. He found there is bore-well along-with fitted motor without electricity connection. He found that there is a roll of electric wire in the complainant’s room and he has taken photographs for the same. “ Digital Photographs filed by the Advocate-Commissioner reveal that the roll of electric wire and fitted motor and other physical features of the land in S.No.79-5 of Thumukunta Village of the complainant. From the above photographs it is quite evident that there is a roll of electric wire in the complainant’s room and also fitted motor. Admittedly there was connection provided by the opposite party to the complainant with Service Connection No.645. It is quite clear that the said Service Connection No.645 was not provided by the Department by erecting current poles connecting with proper wire. For that purpose, the complainant has requested the Department under Ex.A1. Even after that also, the opposite party has not taken any steps in providing electricity by erecting current poles to the complainant. As per Ex.A2 it is evident that the complainant has paid electrical charges also. No doubt, it is admitted by the complainant that he stopped paying electricity charges because the wire connection taken by him without pole may fall on the earth without support. The said explanation given by the complainant in not paying electricity bills cannot be ruled out completely because it is the bounden duty on the part of the Electricity Department i.e. opposite party while providing new connection to the consumer they have to take necessary precautions and necessary steps. Here in this case, admittedly service connection No.645 was provided to the complainant by the opposite party without erecting current poles and by giving proper support to the current wire. It is not proper on the part of the Electricity Department to throw blame on the complainant and instead of set-righting the things the opposite party officials merely disconnected electricity connection is not a proper remedy in this case on the pretext of non-payment of electricity charges. The allegation of the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the then Engineer Jayababu, Electricity Department of the opposite party is an oral allegation. To prove the same, there is no corroborated evidence on the part of the complainant. But however it must be presumed that the opposite party might have received necessary amount as per rule to give service connection to the complainant, other-wise, the opposite party would not have given service connection No.645 to the complainant. So giving service connection No.645 without observing all the formalities like erecting poles, giving connection through proper wire etc., is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, we do not find any merits in the contention of the opposite party in this case. Hence, we held this point in favour of the complainant.
13. POINT NO.2 - In view of the discussion supra in point No.1, due to the act of the opposite party Department, the complainant suffered a lot and mental agony, as such we are hereby direct the opposite party to give regular service connection to the complainant by taking necessary precautions and also to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. With regard to loss of earnings, the complainant has not established the loss of earnings by proving his earnings in the said survey land. So, no amount was awarded to the complainant towards loss of earnings.
14. POINT NO.3 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to give regular service connection to the complainant by taking necessary precautions and also to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 14th day of August, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
PW1 – Hidayathulla Khan, Complainant RW1 - Sri B.N.Vijaya Raju, A.D.E., Hindupur.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Copy of the representation submitted by the complainant to the opposite party
dt.09-05-2013.
Ex.A2 - Statement of Electricity Bill for the period November, 2008 to November, 2013
Issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of representation under Right to Information Act made by
U.Srinivasulu to the opposite party along-with counter foil of I.P.O.
Ex.A4 - Letter issued by the opposite party to U.Srinivasulu in reply of Right to
Information Act dt.20-11-2013.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
