BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member
Monday, the 7th day of October, 2013
CC. No. 06 of 2013
Between:
Nirjapla Mallaiah S/o Pentaiah,
Aged about 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No. 5-52, Gadi Peddapur Village,
Alladurgam Mandal, District Medak. ……Complainant
And
The Assistant Engineer,
APCPDCL, Alladurgam,
District Medak.
… Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 25.09.2013 in the presence of Sri G. Shiva Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite party, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to fix the meter box (main box) for the bore well and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards compensation, damages, mental agony and costs and pass any other order as deemed fit and proper.
Brief averments of the complaint:
The complainant is an agriculturist cultivating Sugarcane, grass, vegetables and other crops for his livelihood in Sy. No. 731 admeasuring 2 Acres and 20 guntas situated at Gadipeddapur village, Alladurgam Mandal, Medak district. The complainant is a lease holder and land lord being Smt. G. Prabavati @ Prabamma W/o G. Narsimlu.
On 17.12.2012, the officials of the opposite party took away the main box (meter box) due to the delay in payment of electricity bill of Rs. 1048/- for the service connection no. 5551000720 of G. Narsimlu/land lord. The complainant paid the due amount on 19.12.2012 and obtained the receipt. So despite the clearance of dues the opposite party had not given reconnection as such the complainant suffered with lack of bore well water for his cultivation activity. Thus constitutes deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
After repeated requests to the opposite party for fixing of main box and reconnection, vexed with the attitude of the opposite party, a legal notice dated 31.12.2012 was issued. The opposite party was negligent enough that he failed to give reply notice also. Hence this complaint seeking adequate compensation as prayed in the complaint.
2. The opposite party in his written version while denying that the complainant is a consumer admitted that the service connection is in the name of Narsimulu who was given the power supply from the year December 2005 onwards. He further submits that till the issue of notice dated 05.12.2012, the owner has not paid a single paisa to the department. He also alleges that the complainant refused to receive the same and the said notice was pasted on the wall of the complainant’s house. The opposite party also affirms that the complainant paid the pending bill of Rs. 1048/- which will be valid till February 2013, but failed to pay Rs. 50/- towards reconnection charges.
The opposite party further submits that even after disconnection of agricultural service connection for non-payment of power consumption charges for several years, the complainant was found using the power unauthorizedly by threatening the line man and abusing him in filthy language. He also specifically stated that the complainant had raised the sugarcane crop and supplied the yield to Ganesh Factory, Sangareddy. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the department/ opposite party. The opposite party finally admits to give reconnection, if the complainant pays the reconnection charges of Rs. 50/- to the department.
3. Both the parties led their documentary evidence and got marked as Exs. A1 to A11 and B1 to B2 respectively. Only the complainant filed written arguments and both advanced oral arguments. Heard both the parties.
4. Now, the point for consideration is whether the opposite party caused any deficiency in service, if so to what relief?
Point:
5. The complainant has agricultural service connection for the cultivation of Sugar Cane and other crops in his lease land owned by Smt. G. Pravabathi W/o G. Narsimulu. Whereas for non-payment of power consumption charges of Rs. 1048/- for three years, the department /opposite party took away the main box (meter) on 17.12.2012. The complainant however paid the pending bill on 19.12.2012. But he was not given reconnection, due to which he suffered no water for his crops from the bore well. Even after issuing legal notice dated 31.12.2012. The opposite party not responded i.e. either reconnection or reply notice was given. Hence the complainant is seeking redressal before this Forum for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party / department.
6. In support of his case, the complainant produced, lease-land agreement (manuscript) as Ex. A1; Receipt of APCPDCL for the payment of Rs. 1048/- on 19.12.2012 as Ex. A2; Copy of the legal notice dated.31.12.2012 and Ex. A4 which is the RLAD/ Postal receipt dated 31.12.2012 and Ex. A5 is the postal acknowledgement of opposite party. The Ex. A6 to A11 (Six photos) shows the complainant in his agri-fields.
7. The opposite party filed attested copy of the notice dated 05.12.2012 for payment of Rs. 1048/- + 50 RF as Ex. B1 and Ex. B2 (3 sheets) is the consumption and billing history of the agricultural service number 5551000720 in the name of G. Narsimulu.
8. During the course of proceedings, as per the orders of I.A. no 51 of 2013 dated 09.04.2013 in the instant case “the respondent / opposite party was directed to provide reconnection of power to the agri-bore well on remittance of the necessary charges including miscellaneous charges by the complainant”.
The opposite party complied with the interim order but collected Rs. 195/- for the reconnection charges.
The complainant expressed that he incurred an extra amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards purchase of new electric main box (meter).
9. On careful perusal of the case, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 covers matters relating to deficiencies in services. The opposite party is a public utility service provider. The ‘Electricity’ being one of the services covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is, therefore, a consumer who has the power to file complaint against any kind of deficiency in service on the part of APCPDCL/Electricity board.
10.a) The other contention of the complainant is, he suffered loss of crop for want of bore-well water in the absence of power supply by the department/opposite party. The complainant is an agriculturist raising seasonal crops in his fields, but for want of Rs. 50/- as reconnection charges by the department despite payment of the Electricity bill Rs. 1048/- on 19.12.2013 (which is valid till February 2013 as admitted by opposite party/ department) and restoration of electricity supply in the month of April 2013 through interim order of this Forum throws light on the non application of mind by the officials of opposite party concerned. Though the complainant failed to produce any document other than just photographs to prove the loss incurred due to non availability of bore-well water for failure to restoration of electric supply by the opposite party department, yet it can be inferred that there should have been some loss because the season for the sugarcane crop falls during the above disputed period i.e, December 2012 to April 2013. The opposite party / department had stressed that the complainant used the power un-authorizedly by taping the LT line. If it was so, nothing restrained the Assistant Engineer / opposite party to book a theft (OR) pilferage case under Electricity Act, 2003 against the complainant, but the department did not do so.
b). Now the crux of the point is regarding reconnection charges of Rs. 50/- to be paid by the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant had challenged validity of the notice of the department/opposite party for payment of arrears and reconnection charges, vide Ex. B1 dated. 05.12.2012. The learned defence counsel submitted that the said notice (Ex.B1) was affixed to the house of complainant. Had it be so, the opposite party would have produced documentary evidence to that effect in consonance with rule 20 of order 5 of Code of Civil Procedure (having neighbours signatures etc to prove that the notice was served by affixing on the wall). Thus the impugned notice is the creation of the opposite party / Department for the purpose of defence in the instant case.
Moreover the validity of payment of reconnection charges by the agriculturist / complainant was raised by the complainant and also insisted upon by the bench for which the learned counsel of the opposite party informed the Forum that he would produce the necessary circular (or) rule position etc but till date did not comply with the same. Thus it is presumed that there was no legality in demanding reconnection charges of Rs. 50/- by the Department/opposite party in the instant case and therefore disconnection of the service of power supply to the bore well of the complainant is illegal.
Adding to the above, when the interim orders were passed by this Forum, the complainant was in duress to pay the reconnection charges to save other crops of cultivation by obtaining power supply for his bore well. But ultimately, the Department/opposite party failed to justify the demand of reconnection charges. Thus deficiency in service is clearly proved in this aspect on the part of the opposite party.
11. During the arguments, the counsel for the complainant gave calculation for the loss of Sugar cane per acre would be 30-35 tons of crops and each ton of crop carries a market value of Rs. 2800/- but the compensation sought in his prayer is much lesser than the said calculation leading to controversy. Even otherwise the complainant failed to submit either a report from the competent authority to ascertain the actual loss for award of claimed compensation or any other evidence. However for the delay in restoration of the power supply enough material evidence is available, hence he deserves some compensation on this count and the same is reasonably fixed at Rs. 10,000/- to meet the ends of justice.
12. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party /department is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency in restoration of power supply, mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance is One month.
Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 7th day of October, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
N. Mallaiah (Evidence affidavit filed) | RW. 1- A. Mohan, AE/APCPDCL/ Alladuram, Medak Dist. (Evidence affidavit filed) |
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
Ex.A1/dt08.01.2012 – Lease Land Agreement. (Manuscript) | Ex. B1/dt.05.12.2012 – Copy of demand notice of APCPDCL. |
Ex.A2/dt. 19.12.2012 – APCPDCL – Receipt. | Ex. B2/dt. 19.12.2012 – (3 sheets) Consumption, Billing, Collection and arrears history statement. |
Ex.A3/dt.31.12.2012 – Copy of Legal notice (2 sheets). | |
Ex.A4/dt.31.12.2012 – RLAD/postal registration slip. | |
Ex.A5/dt. not clear - Postal acknowledgement. | |
Ex.A6 to A11/dt.-nil - Six photographs/Agri-field. | |
| |
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
