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. 05 of 2013
Between:
G. Shiva Raj S/o Chenna Goud,
Aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No. 8-20/B, 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 Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stating that the complainant, G. Shiva Raj is the owner and cultivating agricultural land at Gadi Peddapur village, Alladurgam Mandal, Medak District. He is cultivating sugarcane, vegetables and other crops. On 17.12.2012 the opposite party removed his main box (electricity connection) without any notice for delay in paying his electricity bill amounting to Rs. 1563/-. His service connection number is 5551000721. On 19.12.2012 without much delay the complainant states that he paid the bill and collected the receipt.
Thereafter the opposite parties did not fit the main box. Despite several requests on his side, the opposite party did not comply. As he did not have electricity, he was unable to operate the bore well and cultivate his land. His entire crop was damaged due to lack of water.
He further submits that he issued the opposite party a legal notice on 31.12.2012. Even on receipt of legal notice the opposite party did not deign to reply. Hence he filed this complaint seeking direction from the Hon’ble Forum to address his grievance. In his prayer for the deficiency and negligence on the part of the opposite party, he seeks an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and towards compensation Rs. 40,000/- towards expenses – Rs. 10,000/- and further an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by him.
2. Opposite party filed their counter expressly denying the allegations made by the complainant. At the outset they contend that the complainant is not a consumer and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. Secondly they state that the complainant has not filed any document to prove that he is the owner/possessor of the land. According to their records the service connection is in the name of G. Shiva Raj who is the land lord of the said land and the service connection was given in December 2005. They claim that from then (2005) onwards till issue of notice on 05.12.2012 the owner of the service connection 5551000721 has not paid a paisa to the department. On issue of notice and also having posted the same on his house, he has paid an amount of 1563/- towards arrears but failed to pay Rs. 50/- towards reconnection charges. Despite notice being served on the complaint he failed to pay current consumption charges for the previous three years. Therefore connection was severed while issuing 15 days notice.
They further submit that the complainant has been using the power in an unauthorized manner by tapping on the L.T. line and threatened the line men when they approached him. Moreover he did not suffer due to his crop being damaged. He sold his sugarcane crop to Ganesh sugar factory and did not incurr any loss on account of disrupted power supply.
They reiterate that he has approached the Forum with a false complaint and seek that the complaint may be dismissed with cost. They are ready to reconnect the power supply provided the complainant pays Rs. 50/- to the department towards reconnection charges.
3. The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit and marked Ex. A1 to A8. The Assistant Engineer, APCPDCL, Alladurgam, Medak district filed his evidence affidavit and relied on Ex. B1 and B2 in their defense.
The counsel for the complainant has submitted written arguments but the counsel for the opposite party did not submit written arguments. Heard both the counsel.
4. Now the point for consideration is that whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and in claiming the reliefs by the complainant?
Point:
5. There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner and is cultivating the land in survey nos. 731/A and 754/A. There is no dispute that he was having the electricity connection vide connection number 5551000721. The dispute is solely regarding the non-payment of arrears and reconnection charges:
Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of pattadar pass book and it has details of the survey number of the land cultivated by the complainant.
Ex.A2 is the legal notice issued to the AE, APCPDCL , Alladurgam. The notice is dated 31.12.2012. In the legal notice it is stated that without any prior notice the electricity department personnel removed his main (meter) box and although he settled his dues on 19.12.2012 the main box was not reconnected thus causing him grave loss and agony.
Ex.A3 is the receipt issued by APCPDCL dated 19.12.2012 for an amount of Rs. 1563 for the service connection number 5551000721. Ex. A4 is the postal receipt dated 31.12.2012. Ex. A5 is the acknowledgement card, Ex.A6, A7 and A8 are photographs of the complainant standing in his field of damaged crop, underling his complaint of great loss.
6. The opposite party filed Ex.B1, which is the notice issued to the complainant from their department and in dated 05.12.2012. Ex. B2, the billing, collection and arrears particulars regarding the service connection no. 5551000721. A careful perusal of Ex. B1, shows that the notice is not served on the complainant. There are no witness signatures on this exhibit. Even during the course of the hearing the complainant counsel denied having received the notice. The opposite parties counsel failed to prove that the notice was legally served on the complainant. In this exhibit the notice issued by APCPDCL, they ask for Rs. 1563+50, which total to Rs. 1613. Obviously he has paid Rs. 1563/- as per Ex. A3 but did not pay the reconnection charges of Rs. 50/- but instead filed this complaint.
7. On a petition filed by the complainant in I.A. 50/2013 the Forum gave direction to the APCPDCL, Alladurgam to restore power supply on 09.04.2013. This was complied with the during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant, under duress paid an amount of Rs. 195/- on 15.04.2013 towards reconnection charges and Rs. 2,000/- towards installation of electric meter box on 12.04.2013. The complainant expressed that he incurred an extra amount of Rs. 2000/- and re-connection charges of Rs. 195/- was collected in excess.
The amount has been unduly collected by the opposite party. They fail to state why they collected this extra amount from the complainant. It has been an additional burden on the complainant.
The complainant is an agriculturist raising seasonal crops in his fields, but for want of Rs. 50/- as reconnection charges by the department he was punished. Despite having paid his bill he was penalized. During the course of the hearing the counsel for the opposite party was asked by the bench the “rule position” or any “circular of the department” to support their demand. But the counsel of the opposite party failed to submit the same. Thus there is no legality in their demand for reconnection charges Even otherwise there is no proof that the demand notice was duly served on the complainant as noted above. Thus the disconnection of electric power is illegal.
8. The other contention of the complainant is that he suffered great loss in the absence of power supply as he could not cultivate his crop. His bore well had no power supply and being an agriculturist he suffered greatly. The sugar cane crop is grown during the months of December to April and it can be safely inferred that the complainant must have suffered greatly due to no power supply to irrigate his land. But he failed to submit a report of a competent authority to ascertain the actual loss for award of claimed compensation or any other evidence. Therefore the alleged loss of crop cannot be accepted.
9. 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. 2000/- 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
Copy to
- The Complainant
- The Opp.parties
- Spare copy
