Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/59/2010

A.Subramanyam Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

O.Muneiah, N.Yoganand

27 Jan 2011

ORDER

                                                                                                Filing Date:-01-10-2010.

                                                                                                Order Date:-27-01-2011.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI

 

Present:- Sri G.V. Raghavulu, President.

     Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

 

C.C.No.59/2010

Between

A. Subramanyam Naidu,

Agriculturist,

Residing at G.K.N. Kandriga village,

Kammapalle Post,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          …. Complainant.

 

And

The Chairman & Managing Director,

A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

Tirupati.                                                                                                         …. Opposite party

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.01.2011 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri O. Muneiah & Sri N. Yoganand, counsel for the complainant, and Sri P. Balaram, counsel for the opposite party and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY Smt. T. ANITHA , MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,62,711/- towards damages and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony for the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party and pass appropriate and necessary orders in the circumstances of the case.

2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:  The complainant is an agriculturist  by cultivating a extent of acres 4.64 cents in G.K.N. Kandriga village  in Kamapalle village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal in different survey numbers and the said property is in the name of the complainant, vide pass book No.19861 issued by the M.R.O., Ramachandrapuram Mandal and also cultivating another extent of 0.86 cents along with his father A. Shankar Naidu, S/o. Appa Naidu of the same village and the complainant and his father jointly having an extent of acre 5.50 cents. He raised sugarcane crop in the year 2009 in an extent of acre 5.50 cents by spending huge amounts and the crop is aged about 11 months was about to cutting stage.  Electrical lines are going through the complainant’s fields, i.e., sugarcane field and complainant’s father A. Sankar Naidu is a consumer of the opposite party vide S.C.No.66317000164/1 and  is regularly paying electrical consumer charges. The poles were going through the fields of the complainant. 11/33 KV electrical lines are very loose and frequently at the time of winds, the wires are touching each other and fire is generated.  The complainant and other neighbours also reported the matter several times to the concerned lineman and to other officers, but they did not take any action. On 07.02.2010 at about 11.05 a.m. while the complainant and his family members were working in the sugarcane fields, due to loose electrical wires between the poles and sugarcane garden touched each other and due to short circuit fire was originated from the electrical wires and the said fire was fallen on the sugarcane garden and the entire sugarcane garden was burned.  Immediately one Devananda Naidu of the same village informed the same at about 11.20a.m. through cell No.9949747333 to the Fire Officer of A.P. Fire and Emergency, Tirupati.  They came at about 11.45 a.m. and meanwhile the entire sugarcane garden was burned like anything.  The fire Service issued a certificate on 15.02.2010 stating that acres 5.50cents sugarcane  was involved in the fire accident because of fire in electrical origin and the said fact is also published in newspapers on 08.02.2010 that fire was caused due to electrical short circuit and negligence of opposite party’s employees.  The VRO and Assistant Revenue Officer of G.K.N. Kandriga village also inspected the said sugarcane filed on 08.02.2010 and submitted a detailed report to the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal and in turn on 11.02.2010 the Tahsildar informed about the fire accident and loss sustained by the complainant to the opposite party with a detailed report.  Subsequently on the reference of VRO and Tahsildar of Ramachandrapuram Mandal and basing on news item, the Municipal Agricultural Officer Sri Lakshmi Devi visited the burned sugarcane garden and issued a detailed certificate on 22.02.2010 that he sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.3,62,711/- vide her letter dated 22.02.2010 and all Revenue Agricultural Farm Department officer unanimously opined that sugarcane garden in the extent  5.50cents was burned due to the fire accident originated from the electrical wires which were going through the fields of the complainant due to power maintenance of opposite party’s employees and the complainant would have earned Rs.6,00,000/- if fire was not caused.  Thus he sustained very heavy financial loss and borrowed amounts for improving his garden with higher rates of interest.  The complainant issued a legal notice dated 26.04.2010 to the opposite party and the opposite party issued a reply notice on 29.05.2010 with false and baseless allegations.  Hence, this complaint.

3.  The opposite party resisted the complaint . In the written version filed on behalf of the opposite party while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter-alia stated that the complainant has not hired any “services” from APSPDCL.  Hence, the complainant do not come within the definition of the “consumer” as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has not filed a scrap of paper to show that he is the consumer of APSPDCL and not paid any amount towards C.C. charges, further as per the guidelines of the government, its authorities paid the amount to the APSPSDCL for use of electricity by the complainant.  Hence, he does not come under the definition of the consumer and also no suit or prosecution or legal proceedings are maintainable against the employees of ASPSPDCL as per Section 168 of Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 82 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.  In this regard the opposite party relied upon a decision, i.e., AIR 1979 AP 221 and also submits that if really the complainant is the owner of the alleged extent of land, he has to file title deeds of the said lands.  In the absence of such documentary proof, the complainant cannot be treated as owner of the said lands and also the father of the complainant cultivating an alleged extent Ac 0.86 cents in the same village is not true and correct.  The opposite party further submitted that father of the complainant A. Shankar Naidu is a consumer and he is having S.C.No.66317000164-1 and paying electrical charges are not true and correct. As per the document No.1 SC.No.663317000164-1 stands in the name of A. Subbamma.  The above allegations are invented by the complainant to strengthen his false case. In this connection it is submitted that 11/33 KV lines were in good condition and the authorities have taken all precautions in maintaining live wires.  No villager or villagers much less the complainant even complained either orally or in writing with regard to loose wires to the authorities.  The Assistant Lineman visited the village if there is any repair, they rectify on the same day.  No villager or villagers were complaining either in written or oral with regard to loose live wires to the authorities.  On 07.02.2010 at about 11.00 a.m. due to loose of electrical wires between the poles on sugarcane garden touching each other and due to short circuit the fire was originated from the electrical lines and the fire was fallen on sugarcane garden and entire sugarcane garden was burned. Immediately the neighbours of the village informed the same to the Fire Officer of A.P. fire & Emergency Services, Tirupati and they came at about 11.45a.m. and meanwhile the entire sugarcane garden was burned and also fire services also issued a certificate dated 15.12.2010 stating Ac.5.05 sugarcane plantation was involved in the fire accident because of the origin of fire in electrical origin. The said fact is also published in newspaper on 08.02.2010 are not true and correct.  Due to said fire only the complainant’s sugarcane crop was burned and he sustained a loss of Rs.6,00,000/- and  the said loss is caused due to the opposite party and its officials poor maintenance and negligence of electrical lines between the poles is absolutely false..  The opposite party submitted that they never received any letter at any point of time or on 11.02.2010 from the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal stating that on 07.02.2010 a fire was originated from 11KV line on the fields of the complainant and the said fire is due to electric short circuit.  The Secretary and Revenue Inspector and Deputy Tahsildar inspected the electrocution and the complainant sustained heavy financial loss is deliberately false.  The said allegations are invented for the purpose of filing this false complaint and the said officials are not competent authorities to give certificate / certificates because they are not eye witnesses to the alleged incident.  Hence, the documents filed by the complainant are fabricated and concocted for the purpose of this case because the said officials could not have seen as to the cause of the fire.  Their documents must have been based on the statement of some persons which is hear say allegations.  The 11KV lines and the poles are erected at the height of 20 to 25 feet from the earth.  Usually any electrical spark is monitary during the aluminum articles are dislodged and cannot harm anything at a distance of 1.2 inches.  The alleged fire accident which came out from the loose lives wires by coming into contact by loose live wires hanging over the field of complainant, the fire may got extinguished and evaporated before reaching the sugarcane crop. Hence the question of sustaining loss due to alleged electrocution cannot be believed.  The alleged incident on the reliable verification by the authorities, the opposite party came to know that the alleged incident was occurred due to burning beedi thrown on the sugarcane dry leaves by unknown persons, but not sparks on the 11 KV line.  Hence, they have been maintaining the transmission lines in good condition and no body complained with regard to any defects.  Hence, they are not at all responsible for the damages sustained by the complainant and they are not liable to pay any amount much less Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant.

            4.  In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and affidavit of his father and got marked exhibits A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the original electricity bill with S.C.66317000164-1; Ex.A2 is the report of V.R.O. submitted to the Tahsildar of Ramachandrapuram Mandal dated 08.02.2010; Ex.A3 is the photocopy of report of Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal to the opposite party dated08.02.2010;  Ex.A4 is the fire service  attendance issued by the Station Fire Officer, Tirupati, dated 15.02.2010; Ex.A5 is the Certificate of Agricultural Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal dated 22.02.2010 estimating the loss of Rs.5,44,711/-; Ex.A6 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 26.04.2010 issued to the officials of the opposite party;  Ex.A7 is the acknowledgement card of the opposite parties (5Nos.); Ex.A8 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 29.05.2010 to the complainant; Ex.A9 is the photocopy of Pattadar pass book which stands in the name of the complainant.

            5.  In support of the case setup in the written version filed by the opposite party No.2, the Superintendent Engineer(Operations) APSPDCL filed his affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 Ex.B1 are the photos  (4)

            6.  Both the parties have filed their written arguments in support of their case.  They have also filed their affidavit evidence and also documents which are marked as exhibits as mentioned above in paras 4 and 5.

7.  Basing on the facts and circumstances of this consumer case and documentary evidence filed before us, the points that arise for our determination are:

   1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of

       Consumer Protection Act ?   

   2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties    

             towards the complainant?

   3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed, if so to what

              extent?

    4. To what relief?

8.  Point Nos.1&2:-   The case of the complainant is that he is having land with an extent of AC 5.05 cents in survey No.62/4 D and 62/2 B vide Patta No.246 and passbook NO. 19861, ie.., Ex.A9 photocopy of pas book in the name of the complainant issued by the MRO, Ramachandrapuram Mandal and also cultivating another extent AC 0.86 cents along with his father and to that agricultural land, he has having SC No. 5324117000023 (66317001641/1), i.e., ExA1 original current bill.  The said connection stands in the name of A. Subbamma who is the mother of the complainant and being joint family, he and his mother regularly paying the electrical charges.  The complainant raised sugarcane crop in the said land in the year 2009 in an extent of AC 5.05 cents in different survey numbers of Kammapalli Village account of Ramachandrapuram Mandal.  The transmission 11/33 KV lines passing over the fields of the complainant across the sugarcane crop are hanging in loose condition and at the time of winds they are touching each other and fire is generated.  The complainant and other ryots complained to the officials of the opposite party to set right the loose wires into condition, but they neglected to do so.  The complainant’s sugarcane crop was 11 months old by 07.02.2010.  On 07.02.2010 at about 11.05 a.m. while the complainant and his family members were working in the sugarcane fields,, the sugarcane crop caught fire due to electrocution on account of loose wires coming into contact and when the fire accident was intimated to the Fire Officer of A.P. Fire and Emergency, Tirupati by one Devananda Naidu of the same village at about 11.20a.m. through cell No.9949747333.  The Fire service  personnel came to the spot at about 11.45a.m. and meanwhile the entire sugarcane garden was burned and the Fire Station Officer issued  certificate, i.e., Ex.A4 dated 15.02.2010, i.e., fire service attendance certificate certifying that the sugarcane crop was involved in fire accident due to electrocution.  On 08.02.2010 the Tahsildar  of Ramachandrapuram Mandal issued Ex.A2 certificate by assessing the damage to the sugarcane crop at Rs.4,50,000/-.  On receipt of the representation made by the complainant, the Tahsildar of Ramachandrapuram Mandal forwarded it to Agricultural Officer, Ex.A3 to enquire the same.  The same was intimated to the opposite party APSPDCL by the Tahsildar.  The Agricultural Officer of Ramachandrapuram mandal filed certificated dated 22.09.2009 Ex.A5 by assessing the dame to the sugarcane crop at Rs.3,62,711.20 and the complainant got issued Ex.A6 office copy of legal notice dated 26.04.2010 to the opposite party calling upon them to pay the damages to an extent of Rs.6,00,000/- to the opposite party and others.  The opposite party and others got issued Ex.A8 reply notice dated 29.05.2010 denying the allegations made in the legal notice of the complainant stating that there is no negligence on their part.

9. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant do not come under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Hence, the complainant do not come within the definition of the “consumer” as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has not filed a scrap of paper to show that he is the consumer of APSPDCL and not paid any amount towards C.C. charges. As per the guidelines of the government, its authorities paid the amount to the APSPSDCL for use of electricity by the complainant.  Hence, he does not come under the definition of the consumer.  There is no contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  In the absence of any agreement between the parties, the complainant cannot be called as consumer.  Hence, the complainant cannot be treated as beneficiary and also they have stated to be more specific that Ex.A1 original electricity bill for the SC No. 5324117000023 (66317001641/1) stands in the name of A. Subbamma.  So, the contract is only between A. Subbamma and APSPDCL, but not with the complainant.  For that the counsel for the opposite party  filed a reported decision 2003(3) CPR 88 (NC) Ashok Kumar Vs. SDO, Harayana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., & Anr. , the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that where electricity connection was in the name of earlier owner from whom complainant  had purchased land, the complainant could not be said to be consumer in the absence of any agreement between the parties.  In Hari Pradad @Harish Kumar Vs. MU.H.B.V.N.L. through Managing Director and Ors. – 2009 (4) CPR 334, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that where electricity connection is not in the name of the complainant in order to fall within the ambit of consumer beneficiary must avail services with approval of consumer. Hence, “As per the section 2(1)(d) clause 2 of C.P. Act, the consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration”.  As seen from Ex.A1 original electricity bill stands in the name of one A. Subbamma.  The counsel for the complainant submitted that the A. Subbamma is the mother of the complainant and being the joint family he and his mother regularly paying the electrical charges, but in order to substantiate their pleadings the complainant did not file any documents to show that the said A. Subbamma is the mother of the complainant and also regarding that he has not filed any affidavit of the 3^rd party or that of A. Subbamma.  Hence, he does not come under the beneficiary of the said services.  So,  in the absence of any evidence to show that he is the beneficiary of the said service connection, the complainant cannot be called as consumer. 

10. As per the next contention of the opposite party the alleged land in the survey no. of 4.64 cents of Kammapalli village does not stand in the name of complainant’s family.  On perusal of the said document, the alleged pass book issued by the Tahsildar, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, which stands in the name of A. Subbamma and further the document consists of so many correction and over writings.  If really, the complainant is the owner of the alleged extent of land, he ought to have filed the  title deeds of the said land.  Hence, in the absence of such documentary proof, the complainant cannot be treated as owner of the said lands and further allegation that his father A. Shankar Naidu cultivating the land extent of 0.86 cents in the same village is not true and correct and also the father of the complainant is not a party in this case. Hence, the said documents cannot be taken into consideration.  As per the contention of the opposite party under Ex.A9 it clearly shows that the said pass book is in the name of A. Subbamma, W/o. Late Appa Naidu.  Ex.A9 the pass book holds in the name of A. Subbamma which was rounded off and changed in the name of the complainant , ie., Subramanyam Naidu, S/o. A. Shankar Naidu, regarding that he has not filed any title  deeds as to show that how he  got the said land and when it was transferred in his name.  In page 5 clause 6 of the Ex.A9it is clearly mentioned that how he got this property through sale vide document No.4172/98 in clause 7 regarding that he has not filed the original documents and pattadar pass book and also he has to prove through documentary evidence how he got that property.  Hence, in the absence of such document, any evidence, the said documents will not be taken into consideration.  The opposite party further submitted that 11 KV transmission lines were in good condition and the charges have been taken all precautions in maintaining live wires.  It is further submitted that Tahsildar, VAO of Kammapalli Village of Ramachandrapuram mandal, A.P fire Emergency services are not competent authorities to give certificate / certificates because they are not eye witnesses to the alleged incident. And as per the contention of the opposite party, the 11KV lines and the poles are erected at the height of 20 to 25 feet from the earth and in support of their contention they have filed photos Ex.AB2. Usually any electrical spark is monemtary during the aluminum articles are dislodged and cannot harm anything at a distance of 1.2 inches.  The alleged fire accident which came out from the loose lives wires by coming into contact by loose live wires hanging over the field of complainant, the fire may got extinguished and evaporated before reaching the sugarcane crop. While such is the case, sustaining loss due to electrocution cannot be believed.  The alleged incident occurred due to burning beedi thrown on the sugarcane dry leaves by unknown persons, but not sparks on the 11 KV line. The opposite party relied upon the decision reported in 2005 (2) CPR 519 and also submitted that the alleged documents issued by the revenue officials have given certificates as to the cause of the fire and the alleged documents are on the statement of some other person or persons. Regarding that he reported National Commission decision reported in 2009(4) CPR pg1 “Mere hear say allegations in the complaint cannot be considered as evidence”. The complainant has not filed the affidavit of A. Devananda Naidu or any of the affidavit of the eye witnesses.  In absence of any affidavit of any eye witnesses of the said incident, cannot be accepted and also the 3^rd party affidavit of A. Shankar Naidu discloses that he is the father of the complainant and it cannot be taken into consideration.  The complainant has not filed any affidavit of revenue officials or Fire Emergency authorities, Tirupati.  The opposite party has been maintaining the transmission lines in good condition and no body complained with regard to any defects.  Hence, the opposite party is not at all responsible for the damages sustained by the complainant.  Hence there is no negligence on their part to pay any compensation.  For the above reasons, we find that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant and also the complainant will not come under the purview of the consumer.  These points are answered accordingly.

            11. Point No.3:-  In view of the facts and circumstances of this consumer case as discussed above in Point No.1, it can be said that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.  This point is answered accordingly.

            12.  Point No.3:-  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 27^th day of January, 2011.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                          Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                        President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON  BOTH SIDES

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1:  Original electricity bill with S.C.66317000164-1;

Ex.A2:  Report of V.R.O. submitted to the Tahsildar of Ramachandrapuram Mandal

              dated 08.02.2010;

Ex.A3: Photocopy of report of Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal to the opposite

             party dated08.02.2010; 

Ex.A4: Fire service  attendance issued by the Station Fire Officer, Tirupati, dated

             15.02.2010;

Ex.A5: Certificate of Agricultural Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal dated 22.02.2010

             estimating the loss of Rs.5,44,711/-;

Ex.A6: Office copy of the legal notice dated 26.04.2010 issued to the officials of the

             opposite party; 

Ex.A7: Acknowledgement card of the opposite parties (5Nos.);

Ex.A8: Reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 29.05.2010 to the complainant;

Ex.A9: Photocopy of Pattadar pass book which stands in the name of the complainant.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1: Photos 4 Nos.

                                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                                       President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

Copies to:- 1. The complainant.

                   2. The opposite party.