JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging deficiency in service in not giving an electricity connection even after giving an application to the OP.  Hence prays for the relief to give electricity connection and Rs.5,00,000/- for the loss to the complainant along with physical and mental agony, deficiency in service and litigation expenses all in total.

             Brief averments of the Complaint are as under;

            2.  That, the complainant has taken permission from the Gram Panchayat, Huligi for the constructions of a building and then later on dated: 13-05-2015 gave an application for the need of electricity connection (I-7) to the OP Department.  But the opponent did not give the electricity connection to the complainant.  Regarding this the complainant went many times to the office of the OP department and enquired about it, but the OP did not respond to it properly and did not give any information.  The complainant further alleged that she had already purchased the materials for the construction purpose like steel, cement, bricks and other materials.  The said materials are being spoiled. The complainant has given a contract of the construction to the contractors and they are objecting her for the delay.  This is all happening because the OP did not give an electricity connection to the complainant.  Due to this reason, the complainant has suffered to the loss of Rs.5,00,000/-. 

            The complainant further alleged that the complainant has issued a notice to the OP regarding the electricity connection on 11-06-2015 and the said notice is served upon him and they have not replied to the notice.  Hence prays for the new electricity connection to be given to the complainant along with Rs.5,00,000/- for the total loss caused to the complainant along with physical and mental agony, deficiency in service and litigation expenses as prayed above.

            3.  This Forum after admitting the complaint, the notice was issued the opponents and the said notice is served upon him.  The counsel for the opponent appeared before the Forum and filed vakalatnama and written version to the main petition.

            4.  The main objections of the Opponent are as under;

            That the opponent denied all the facts in toto.  The opponent submitted that the onus to prove the contents in para No.1 lies on the complainant and it need not to be answered by the opponent.

            The opponent further submitted that in para No.2 to 4 all the contents are false and the opponent is strongly denying it.  On dated: 13-05-2015 it is true to say that an application for electricity connection was given by the complainant and it is false to say that the opponent has not given electricity connection and correct information is not given.  The building construction for which the complainant is asking the electricity connection for the same building where the husband of the complainant has used the illegal current for that building and a criminal case has been registered on him regarding the theft of electricity current.  The opponent has told her that after the payment of the remaining amount of the theft current and compounding amount, the connection will be given to them.  This being the true fact, the complainant has hidden the true facts and has filed a false case against the opponent.  The complainant and her husband have to pay fine to the tone of Rs.79,557/- along with compounding amount and till now they have not paid that amount.  The complainant has filed this complaint to give mental harassment to the opponent.  The opponent further submitted that it is false to say that the construction materials of the complainant have been spoilt and also it is false to say that the contractors are objecting with her for the delay and also false to say that she has given the contract of the building to the contractor.  It is also false to say that the complainant has suffered to the total damages of Rs.5,00,000/-.

            The opponent further submitted that a reply notice was issued on dated: 17-06-2015 to the notice dated: 11-06-2015, which was issued by the advocate for the complainant.  As per the contents of the reply notice, the complainant has not followed.  So due to this reason her application for electricity connection cannot be granted as per the law.  So because these reasons the complainant is mental harassing and torturing the opponent by filing this false complaint.  Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint along with Rs.10,000/- to be paid as exemplary cost for the opponent.

            The opponent further submitted that he would like to bring the true facts of the case.

            The true facts are as follows;

            That on 08-05-2015 Shri Balaji Sing, the Assistant Executive Officer of GESCOM Vigilance wing Koppal had come to Huligi village.  The complainant was constructing a building, which was registered in her name.  Without the permission of GESCOM, the husband of the complainant, i.e., Pampapathi S/o: Parappa Rati had taken the illegal connection of the current towards the right side of the construction building, where a L.T. pole was situated.  It was situated 20 mts., for away.  They had put 2 service wire in the pole and had taken illegal connection from that existing pole and were using the electricity for the construction of building.  From this pole they had stolen the electricity for the building construction.  From this act, the GESCOM had suffered the loss of 3960 units.  There is a loss to the GESCOM Company due to the electricity theft.  The B.B.C. amount is Rs.75,557/- along with compounding amount of Rs.4,000/-.  The vigilance wing have filed a theft case of electricity on the complainant’s husband before the District and Sessions Court and the said case is registered and its C.C. No. 615/2015.  The opponent further submitted that the vigilance wing has asked the opponents to collect the electricity theft amount along with compounding amount of Rs.79,557/- in total.  Regarding this the opponent has issued notice to the complainant’s husband Pampapathi S/o: Parappa Rati on 16-05-2015 for the payment of the amount of Rs.79,557/-.  The opponent further submitted that the complainant after getting to know that the vigilance wing have filed a theft case of electricity u/sec. 135 of the Electricity Act, she has hidden these facts and filed an application for new electricity connection to the same constructing building on 13-5-2015.  Soon after giving the application, the opponent intimated her orally regarding the payment of the theft electricity amount along with compounding amount of Rs.79,557/- to be paid and then electricity connection will be given.  After knowing all these facts, the complainant has issued a legal notice on 11-06-2015 through her advocate and for this a reply notice is issued by the opponent.  The opponent further submitted that when a theft case is filed before the Hon’ble District and Session Court, Koppal and the matter is ordered for investigation.  After knowing all these facts also the complainant has filed this false complaint against the opponent.

            The opponent further submitted that when the Assistant Executive Engineer, GESCOM Vigilance Wing has filed a theft case on the complainant’s husband and when investigation was going on then they came to know that the owner of that building was the complainant.  On 20-08-2015, the opponent has filed an application before the Hon’ble District and Session Court, Koppal to implead the complainant in that theft case.  So in this way there is a criminal case on both the complainant and her husband.  The said documents have been produced before this Hon’ble Forum.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.  Hence prays for the dismissal of the complainant along with the cost.

            5.  On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points that arise for our consideration are;

POINTS

1.  Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent in not giving the electricity connection?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

3. What order?

6. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant herself examined as PW1 and she got marked documents as per Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and closed their side evidence.  The opponent himself examined as RW1 and he has got marked the documents as per Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.11 and closed their side of evidence.

7.  Heard the arguments of counsel and perused the records.

8.  Our findings on the above points are as under;

Point No. 1 :   In Negative

Point No. 2 :  In Negative

                  Point No. 3 :  As per final Order for the following

REASONS

9.  POINT No. 1 and 2:  As these issues are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

10.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record, it is the case of the complainant alleging deficiency in service in not giving electricity connection to the construction of building.  There is no dispute regarding that the complainant had filed an application on 11-06-2015 for the electricity connection.

11.  To prove the case of the complainant, PW1 has reiterated the complaint averments in her examination in chief and in support of her case, she has produced the documents pertaining to the Electricity Supply Application Form, i.e., Ex.A.1.  She has further averred that she has filed their complaint for the deficiency in service in not giving her a new electricity connection.  As per Ex.A.2, it is the building permission letter.  This clearly mentioned that permission is given for the construction of building.  The complainant further averred that inspite of several requests, the opponent failed to give new electricity connection and in this regard a legal notice was issued to the opponent, i.e. Ex.A.3 and the said notice is served on him, i.e., Ex.A.4.

12.  Further with respect to point No.1, the RW1, who is the opponent has deposed as per their specific defence set-up in their written version that the complainant and her husband had stolen electricity current from by taking illegal connection from a LT pole, which was situated to the right side of the construction of the building.  From this LT pole 2 service wire were put and a connection was dragged to the construction building.  This was seen by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Vigilance wing) and a criminal case was registered on the complainant’s husband and its CC No. is 615/2015 before the Hon’ble District and Session Court, Koppal on 08-05-2015.  To substantiate the same, the respondent has produced the FIR, i.e. Ex.B.3.  The Ex.B.3 clearly reveals that a FIR is registered on the complainant’s husband for the theft of the electricity.  But to disprove the said entries the complainant has not whispered a word on it and did not disclose the fact in her complaint and affidavit.  Further, he deposed that a letter was issued to the complainant’s husband for compounding the amount and to pay the electricity  theft amount of Rs.79,557/- to be paid, i.e. Ex.B.1.  This itself clearly shows that the complainant’s husband had stolen the electricity from the LT pole and this was known to the complainant also, and had knowledge about it.  Ex.B.2 reveals that a reply notice was sent to the complainant after paying the fine amount along with compoundable amount, the electricity connection will be given.  The PW1 has failed to depose, the theft case has been registered on the same construction building for which she had filed an application for a new connection.  From this, it is crystal clear that the complainant has suppressed all the facts before the Forum, hence believing her version with respect to the opponent that they have not given electricity connection and a reply notice was not give is not justifiable one.  So also on perusal of Ex.B.4 it is the vigilance report given by the GESCOM.  Ex.B.5 is the Panchanama which was done on 08-05-2015.  Ex.B.6 – Ex.B.10 clearly shows that the procedure aspects showing that the electricity theft was done by the complainant’s husband.  Therefore, on the perusal of Ex.B.1 is clear that this application for want of electricity connection was made only after filing the theft case against the complainant’s husband on the same constructing building by the complainant.  Ex.B.2 clearly shows that they have informed the complainant that after paying the theft electricity amount and compounding amount ofRs.79,577/- in total, electricity connection will be given.  But to substantiate the said deficiency in service, when there is no cogent documents have been produced by the said complainant.  The question of considering the deficiency in service on the part of opponent is not believable.

13.  The counsel has relied the citation reported in 2015 CJ 939 (NC) and 2015 CJ 943 (NC) is not applicable to the case in hand.  Therefore the contention which has been taken by the complainant is vague one and therefore the said allegation set up by the complainant is not justifiable one.

 14. On the contrary as per the documents produced by the opponent pertains to the theft of electricity, there is specific mentioning about the payment of theft electricity amount and compoundable amount after paying this amount connection will be given.  Therefore this prevail over the version of PW1 with respect to the deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service as alleged on the opponent.

15.  On the contrary, as per the oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opponent and the said fact has been clearly discloses in Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.10, which have been already discussed supra.  Hence, in the light of above observation, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on part of opponent in not giving a new electricity connection.  Hence, in the light of above observation we constrained to hold point No. 1 and 2 in Negative.

16.  POINT No. 3 :-  In view of above discussion and findings we proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

2. The complainant is directed to pay the compensatory cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to OP along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) fine to be paid to Consumer Legal Aid Account within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which 12% p.a. interest will be charged from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

3. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 4^th day of April 2016.

                                                // ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.