Date of filing: 9-3-2017 Date of order : 16-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 16th day of November, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 17 / 2017
PAPIREDDY VENKATARAMI REDDY,
S/o P. CHINNAPA REDDY, Aged 49 years,
D. No.5/9, Pulavandlapalli,
Pyarampalle, Galiveedu (M),
Y.S.R. (Kadapa) District. … Complainant.
Vs.
- The Assistant Engineer,
Galiveedu (M),
Y.S.R. (Kadapa) District.
2) The Divisional Engineer,
APSPDCL,
Rayachoty (M),
Y.S.R. (Kadapa) District.
3) The Superintendent Engineer,
APSPDCL, Vidyuth Bhavan,
Yerramukkapalli,
Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
4) The District Collector,
Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. …..Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 7-11-2017 in the presence of Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate for Complainant and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 and Opposite party no.4 called absent and set exparte on 21-7-2017, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite party to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint and compensation towards deficiency in service and grant cost of this complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows :-
The complainant has agricultural lands in Survey no.96 at Pyarampalli village an extent of A.C.0.96 cents in the name of his uncle Krishna Reddy. The complainant is cultivating the lands and he is raising agricultural crops and Dhana for his cows, buffaloes, and producing milk and supplying the same to Dodla Dairy Ltd., and getting income Rs.32,000/-p.m. He has agricultural electricity service connection in the name of his father Chinnappa Reddy bearing service no.2412775000166 and he is paying electricity bills regularly. He also paid additional loan charges to the second respondent for agricultural service on 8-9-2016.
3. But the O.P. nos.1 to 3 disconnected the service on 10-7-2016 without notice. The complainant complained to the 4th respondent on 17-10-2016, 24-10-2016 but no action was taken to restore the service connection for the best reasons known to them. They have not restored the agricultural service in spite of several requests. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of respondents. Hence all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the complainant as he is depending on agricultural income. Due to deficiency of service by O.Ps he purchased Dhana for Rs.1,50,000/- for his milk cattle and sustained loss of Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of crops and milk products. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. O.P. no.4 remained ex-parte.
O.P. no.1,2 and 3 filed written version, they denied all the allegations mentioned in the complaint and called upon to prove all of them. It is further averred the complaint is not maintainable because on the same complaint filed a Petition before Lakkireddy palli Civil Court (Lokadalath) and the court closed the same. Again on very same fact filed this complaint before this Forum for litigation purpose only.
5.It is further averred the complainant’s father Chinnappa Reddy was the brother of P. Viswanath Reddy the service connection no.166 is in existence and stands in the name of his father and it is in S.No.98/3A. The complainant dug a bore well in separate S.No. and taking service wire by hookes and using unauthorizedly. Hence, on variation of the land and S.No. unauthorized service was cut by the opposite parties. He paid additional load to the service connection no.166 of his father. Even now the service connection is in existing. The complainant installed a bore well in S.No.101 but he paid the amount for additional load for another S.No. Wherein the service already provided by the department in the name of his father. He has no electricity connection to the bore in S. No.101. He wanted to have service connection with additional load to that bore. The other contentions in the complaint are false. S.No.166 is well connection. It is falsely represented before the District Collector there is a bore using by the complainant in the service from 166. S.No.166 is far away from the bore well installed by the complainant. The pattadar passbooks and other documents filed by the complainant is no way connected to S.No.166. He paid additional load charges at Rs.5,225/- for the service no.166 only. The complainant wanted to take power illegally from the transformer and unauthorizedly by hooking wire and the neighboring ryths reported the same, as the same caused additional load on the transformer. Hence the department disconnected unauthorized supply. Even now the service connection 166 is continuing without any disconnection. Hence no deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6.No oral evidence has been let in by the parties but on behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of the O.P.s 1 to 3. Both parties filed written arguments . Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed and the material placed on record.
The points arise for determination are
- Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps as pleaded by complainant.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs against O.Ps if so to what extent?
ii) To what relief ?
7.Point no.1 and 2 :- These points are connected to each other, hence they are taken up for discussion together for the sake of convenience.
Learned counsel for complainant submits that after the death of complainant’s father complainant is enjoying the service no.166 by paying the electricity charges and additional load charges but the opposite parties no.1 to 3 disconnected the service connection. Therefore he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.450,000/- due to loss of agricultural crops and Dhana to milching animals. Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps and the same is proved by filing Ex. A1 to A7. Hence complainant is entitled for the reliefs.
on the other hand learned counsel for O.P.no.1 to 3 submits the complainant filed this case on false grounds and no disconnection for service no.166 which stands in the name of petitioner’s father and petitioner’s want to have this connection to his new bore well situated in another survey no. on which is complained by neighboring farmers stating the same causes heavy load on the transformer and other motors are getting spoiled. Therefore the complainant used unauthorisedly by hooking wire to his bore well motor and the same was disconnected and even now the service connection no.166 is in existence and the bore well was dug is S.No.101 and service no.166 is in S. No.98/3A, Therefore the complainant filed this complaint on false grounds to have illegal connection to his bore well from the service no.166 with additional load. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. The complainant filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the agricultural crop loss and also for loss of Dhana to his mulching cattle due to disconnection of service no.166 to his bore well.
The complainant had already filed a petition before Lok Adalat Committee Chairman, Lakkireddypalli i.e., Junior Civil Judge court stating that the respondents disconnected his connection to the bore well. Ex B2 is the petition field by the complainant before Lok Adalath Committee Chairman, Lakkireddy Pally but the same was closed on 18-2-2017 stating both parties not settled the matter amicably.
The case of the complainant is that the O.P.1,2,3 disconnected Service No.166 and caused damage his crops and Dhana to his milching cattle , so he sustained loss to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/.
9. Now it is to be seen, whether the complainant sustained that much loss due to disconnection of service, None of the documents filed by the Complainant disclosed that he had sustained loss of crops or Dhana raised to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
10. According to O.Ps the service connection no.166 is to a open well and the same is in the name of complainant’s father and it is joint connection i.e., with his brother, so all are enjoying the same in S.No.98 and the complainant dug a bore well in S. No.101 and he unauthorizedly using power from the transformer, by hooking wire to 5 HP motor and causing additional load to the transformer. Hence the said unauthorized illegally wire hooking was disconnected. The same has been supported by the statement of one Papireddy Venkata Rami Reddy under Ex. B1. A perusal of Ex. B1 clearly shows that the service connection no.166 is in S. No. 96 and it is 3 HP motor to the open well and the complainant who dug a bore well is taking current to his 5 hp motor by hooking and he paid additional load charges to the service connection in the name of his father Chinnappa Reddy, so by perusal of Ex.B1 to Ex.B6, it is clear that the complainant had not obtained any service connection to his bore dug by him in S. No.101 and no amount was paid for service connection to the bore well of him situated in S. No.101. since, the complainant had no service connection to his newly dug bore well in S. No.101, but he was illegally taking current from the neighboring transformer and paid additional load charges to service no.166. Hence the same was disconnected by the electricity authorities i.e., O.P.s no1 to 3 to prevent the unauthorized use of power by complainant. The action of O.Ps no.1 to 3 in disconnection of illegal connection by complainant to his bore well situated in S.No.101 does not amount of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties have not caused any loss or damage to the agricultural crops and Dhana raised by the complainant and not caused financial loss as pleaded by the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs against O.Ps and O.Ps are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as prayed by him and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered against the complainant.
11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 16th day of November, 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of pattadar passbook of the complainant.
Ex. A2 P/c of pattadar passbook of papireddy Bhagyamma.
Ex. A3 P/c of additional loan charges of Rs.5225/- paid by the complainant
to the second opposite party on 8-9-2016.
Ex. A4 Copy of representation of the complainant to the fourth opposite
party on 17-10-2016 and 24-10-2016 along with acknowledgements
issued by fourth opposite party.
Ex. A5 The petitioner representation and Tahsildhar no objection certificate
for electricity connection of petitioner.
Ex. A6 Photo of well of petitioner.
Ex. A7 Rough sketch of transformer, well, bore well of petitioner an others.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : -
Ex. B1 P/c of the statement given by 1 P. Viswanath Reddy is a neighbor
farmer, dt. 4-12-2016.
Ex. B2 P/c of the Lok Adalath order close the petition by the honorable 1st
class judicial magistrate, L.R. palli, kadapa.
Ex. B3 P/c of the statement of V.R.O.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Sri B. Bhaskar, Advocate, Kadapa.
2) Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, Kadapa.
3) The District Collector, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
P.R.
