Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/31/2011

B.Balaji at the rate Balaji Naidu,S/o. Ranganatha Naidu, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Vellore G.Ganesh

05 Jan 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:25.04.2011

First Order Date: 15.02.2012

(Set Aside and Remanded in F.A.No.655/2012 dt:13.08.2013)

Second Order after Remand date: 05.01.2015

Matter remanded in F.A.No.139/2015 and case restored on:25.07.2016

Fresh Order Date:20.12.2016.

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

TUESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.31/2011

 

 

Between

 

B.Balaji @ Balaji Naidu,

S/o. Ranganatha Naidu,

Resident of Gangamambapuram village,

Viajayapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

            APSPDCL,

            Kesavayanagunta,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         The Superintendent Engineer (Operation),

            APSPDCL,

            Tirupati.

 

3.         The Divisional Engineer (Operation),

            APSPDCL,

            Vijayapuram Post & Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

4.         The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation),

            APSPDCL.,

            Vijayapuram Post & Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

5.         The Assistant Engineer (Operation),

            APSPDCL.,

            Pannur,

            Viajaypuram Mandal,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.06.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.G.Ganesh, counsel for complainant, and Sri. T.V.Subramanyam Raju, counsel for opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

 

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section - 12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant Sri.B.Balaji @ Balaji Naidu, against the opposite parties 1 to 5 - Electrical Department, for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,05,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. from 10.09.2010 till payment and to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint and to pass such other and further orders as this Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

            This is third round of litigation.

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant Sri.B.Balaji @ Balaji Naidu, is the resident of Gangamambapuram village, Vijayapuram mandal. He got Ac.4.04 cents of land in different survey numbers in Padiri revenue village of Nindra mandal. Pattadar passbook and title deeds were also issued in his favour by the concerned Revenue Officials. The opposite parties despite several objections of the complainant have installed 220 KV transformer and the electrical lines were passing over the fields of complainant. That the complainant raised sugarcane in his Ac.4.04 cents of land. Due to the gross negligence of the opposite parties, short circuit occurred due to heavy supply of power to a tune of 450 KV on 10.09.2010, as a result of which, the entire sugarcane crop of the complainant was burnt. He also taken photos of burnt field / crop. Immediately, after the accident the complainant has informed the Fire Service Station, Nagari, on which the fire service crew came to the fields, stopped flames from spreading to other fields. The Fire Service Authority, Nagari, Chittoor Co-op Sugars Ltd., Chittoor, Sarpanch and Members of Vijayapuram, the Tahsildar Nindra Mandal and V.R.O., of Netteri Cluster of Nindra Mandal and the Agricultural Officer, Nindra Mandal issued certificates about the fire accident dt:10.09.2010, assessing the value of the sugarcane loss at 50 to 53 M.T. and 45 to 50 M.T. respectively and the market value of each ton of sugarcane is Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,200/-. He has spent Rs.40,000/- to take away the burnt sugarcane to some other place. He has no other source of income except the agricultural income. Complainant raised sugarcane by availing loans from third parties. As the entire sugarcane crop was burnt due to the gross negligence of the opposite parties, he got issued a legal notice dt:24.09.2010 calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation. The opposite parties though received notice did not pay compensation. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.5, filed written version on 27.07.2011 and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4. Again on 18.12.2014 opposite party No.5 has filed additional written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 4. In the written version, opposite parties have admitted that the electrical lines are passing over the fields of complainant. The capacity of the transformer is only 25 KVA, as such there is no possibility of heavy supply of power in 450 KV to the said transformer. The Electrical Authorities have inspected the lines and the transformer in question and found that they were in good condition. The fire accident may be due to various other reasons. The Tahsildar, Nindra Mandal, and Sarpanch Netteri are not competent to certify the electrical accidents. There is no short circuit as alleged. If there is any short circuit, the transformer might have damaged totally and the crops of other ryoths also should have burnt, but no such complaint from any other ryoth, and the transformer and lines are found in good condition. As per Ex.A7 and statement of Sarpanch, Gangamambapuram, some of the villagers i.e. cow boys have seen the fire accident and informed the same to the complainant, then the complainant went to his fields to stop the fire. As per Ex.A3 Fire Service Report, one Meghanadham, P.C. of Nagari Police Station, informed to Fire Station people about the fire accident, and column No.6 of Ex.A3 shows that fire accident was at Gangamambapuram village, whereas lands are situated at Padiri village. The complainant has to clarify the discrepancies in Ex.A3 and Ex.A7. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complaint is not maintainable and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether the complainant is a consumer?

            (ii). Whether there is short circuit due to high voltage of 450 KV as alleged to

                   the transformer in question?         

            (iii)  Whether there is deficiency in service or gross negligence on the part of

                   the opposite parties as alleged?

            (iv). Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (v).  To what relief?

            5.  Point No.(i):-  The first and foremost question involved in this case is whether the complainant is a consumer?. For the reasons best known to the complainant, nowhere in the complaint or in his chief affidavit filed at the earliest opportunity on 19.09.2011, the complainant did mention that he is a consumer and the word consumer was not at all found place either in the complaint or in his chief affidavit dt:19.09.2011. Here, the first aspect is whether the complainant is a consumer and another aspect is whether there is consumer dispute.

            6.  The complaint is silent, as silence could be, relating to the status of the complainant. Whether he is a consumer or the dispute whether amounts to consumer dispute. Similarly, he is also silent whether he is availing services of opposite parties as service providers and whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties either in the complaint or in his evidence affidavit dt:19.09.2011. Now, it is pertinent to refer the word consumer. Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986, defines the word consumer as follows:-    

“Consumer means any person who – (i). buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose (or) (ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

 

            In this regard, I have to state that Clause.1 of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act relates to purchase / buying of goods. It is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. So far as Clause.2 of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act, it is concerned for hiring or availing of services. This is the apt provision for the case on hand. As such the complainant at the first instance has to plead and prove that he is a consumer, secondly, he has to plead and prove that complainant has obtained service connection from the opposite parties for his lands, that he is availing the services of opposite parties, so as to confine the status of service providers on the opposite parties in respect of the complainant.    

            7.  Nowhere in the complaint, the complainant states that he is a consumer. Similarly, nowhere in the complaint, the complainant pleaded that he has taken service connection from the opposite parties for the purpose of his agricultural lands. Similarly, nowhere in the complaint he pleads that he is availing the services of the opposite parties, that he is paying the electrical consumption charges regularly. When the complainant himself failed to plead that he is a consumer and that there is consumer dispute between himself and the opposite parties and also when there is no pleading that he is availing the services of opposite parties, the subsequent evidence filed under Exs.17,18, and Ex.A22 cannot be accepted. Because it is settled proposition of law that the evidence for which there is no pleading cannot be looked into. In this regard, I am relying on the following citations:

1) AIR 1930 Privy Council 57(1) Atta Md. Vs. Emperor.

2)  AIR 1995 SCC(5) 612 (Dt:30.08.1995) Abubakar Abdul Inamdar Vs. Harun

     Abdul Inamdar.

3)  (2003) SC 134 (Dt:04.03.2003) Bondar Singh Vs. Nihal Singh

            Their Lordships of Privy Council and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when no plea is taken in the pleadings, no evidence can be looked into in relation thereto i.e. in the absence of pleadings on a issue, no evidence can be looked into. In another decision reported in 1977 (1) SCC 511 Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia, their Lordships of Supreme Court held that in the absence of pleading a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the suit. In another decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 134 (Judgment of 3 Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court) H.D.Vashishta Vs. Glaxo Laboratories, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held “that there must be a statement in the plaint and material facts necessary to confirm a cause of action and a new plea, cannot be taken without a factual foundation in the pleading. Therefore, we are unable to appreciate the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the legal plea can be raised at any time of the case and it is for the Court to grant relief in appreciation of the material placed on record and evidence”. Their Lordships further held that it is settled principle of law that even for raising new plea on the basis of provisions of law, it must have its foundation in the pleadings and in the absence of pleading even though evidence adduced by the party, it cannot be looked into. In another decision reported in 1987 AIR 1242 = 1987 SCR (2) 805 Ram Sarup Gupta Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is well settled that in the absence of pleading,  evidence if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel  beyond its pleadings and all necessary material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set-up by it. In order to have a fair trial, it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts in the pleadings. Pleadings must inspire confidence and credibility – (2010) 2 SCC 114 Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. In another decision reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors. Their Lordships of Supreme Court held that omission of a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and the statement or plaint becomes bad.

            The facts of the above catena of decisions are directly and squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand on the sole ground that any material facts such as the complainant is a consumer, that he is availing the services of the opposite parties were not found place in the complaint / pleadings. Therefore, the material facts were not pleaded, as such the subsequent evidence under Exs.A17, 18, 22 cannot be looked into, as they were new to the pleadings. Similarly, though the complainant mentioned in his additional evidence filed on 29.09.2016 about 5 years after the alleged fire accident, that he has availed the services of opposite parties by taking service connection in SC No.103 and that he is a consumer etc. cannot be accepted, as there is no pleading to that effect.

            8.  In the case on hand, the complainant filed the complaint on 25.04.2011, till the said complaint is as it is (intact) in its original state. It is settled proposition of law that one who filed the case shall plead and prove his case, but contrarily nowhere in the complaint the word consumer is found place, complainant did not plead in his complaint the following a) that he is a consumer, b) that he has obtained agricultural service connection from opposite parties to his fields and availing services of opposite parties at any point of time in any manner, c) that he was given a service connection number, that he is availing the services of opposite parties from a particular period / year, not only in the complaint but also in the chief affidavit of the complainant dt:19.09.2011. Though the case is remanded once on 13.08.2013 in F.A.No.655/2012 in C.C.No.31/2011 and again on 16.05.2016 in  F.A.No.139/2015 in C.C.No.31/2011, the complainant did not choose to plead the material facts, as the parties have filed certain documents in the appeal by taking necessary amendments, so as to state himself as a consumer and also did not choose to file original documents of Exs.A17, A18 and Pattadar Passbooks, which were expected to be in possession of the complainant, inspite of the circular issued by the Hon’ble State Commission in Dis.No.1684 dt:15.10.2016, so as to assess the genuineness of Exs.A17 and A18. Under the above circumstances, we are unable to convince with the case of the complainant that he is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act.

            9.  Another point is whether there is consumer dispute between the complainant and the opposite parties. The word consumer dispute is defined in Section-2(1)(e) of the C.P.Act 1986 as follows:-

           

     “consumer dispute” means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint.

                   

            Here, the allegations made in the complaint are that there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties, that there was short circuit in the transformer in question, that there was supply of high voltage i.e. 450 KV etc. and also the opposite parties denied that the Tahsildar, V.R.O. and also the Chittoor Co-op Sugar Factory Ltd. were not competent persons to issue certificates. When the first aspect i.e. the word consumer is not established by the complainant, the question of consumer dispute was also fallen suspicion.

            10.  Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer. In the absence of such pleadings and in view of the decisions referred to above, we hold that the complainant is not a consumer. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            11.  Point No(ii):-  to answer this point, except the electrical authorities such as competent Engineers, no others can assess the voltage or excess voltage if any that was alleged to have been affected the transformer in question. According to complainant, the transfer in question was in the capacity of 220 KV and high voltage of 450 KV was affected on 10.09.2010 on which date the alleged short circuit was occurred. The complainant being a ryoth, he cannot assess the capacity of transformer as well as the high voltage if any. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, the capacity of transformer is only 25 KV, as such there is no possibility for heavy supply of power in 450 KV to the said transformer. If any such high voltage is there, certainly the entire transformer will be burnt. As per Ex.B5 the capacity of transformer was only 11 KV distributor and there was no any high voltage was recorded in the Sub-Station. Ex.B5 is the Daily Log Book of 33/11 KV Sub-Station dt:10.09.2010 (Friday). As such there is no proof that there was high voltage of 450 KV supplied to the transformer in question on 10.09.2010. Except the statement of complainant, no other material is there to prove the allegation that on 10.09.2010 there was high voltage of 450 KV or any amount of electrical capacity beyond the capacity of the transformer, this allegation was also not proved by the complainant.

            12.  So far as the lands are concerned, Ex.A20 is the copy of Adangal of Padiri revenue village of Nindra mandal, Ex.A22 is the copy of Patta No.15 stood in the name of complainant. Ex.A21 is the copy of Patta No.222, which is not relevant to the case, as the lands covered under Ex.A21 are situated in Gangamambapuram of Vijayapuram Mandal. There was no any allegation that the crops in the lands covered under Ex.A21 in Patta No.222 were burnt Similarly Ex.A23 stood in the name of Krishnakumari, the wife of complainant in respect of Patta No.334, this document is also not relevant as this patta was given on 24.02.2016 i.e. about 5 years after the said fire accident. The opposite parties in their written version have rightly contended that there was some discrepancies between Ex.A3 and Ex.A7. As per Ex.A3 dt:13.09.2010, certificate issued by Station Fire Officer, Nagiri, Column No.6 shows that address of the premises involved in the fire accident is Gangamambapuram village, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, which is quite against the contention of the complainant because the other documents shows that the fire accident was occurred in the lands situated in Padiri village of Nindra Mandal. Therefore, Ex.A3 cannot be accepted. Ex.A4 dt:13.09.2010 also shows that the lands are situated in Gangamambapuram village, which is also not relevant for the case on hand. According to Ex.A7 dt:-nil-, which is the statement of Sarpanch and some other ryoths of Gangamambapuram, Balaji, resident of Gangamambapuram got lands in Padiri revenue village in an extent of Ac.4.04 cents, which was burnt in fire accident due to short circuit in the transformer, some villagers, who were grazing cattle / cows at that place came to village and informed about the fire accident to the complainant, and some ryoths, who signed in Ex.A7 along with villagers rushed to the fields and tried to put-off the flames, they also informed to fire service, by the time fire service people came, the sugarcane crop was totally burnt. The person, who actually saw the fire accident, did not file any affidavit or statement. Therefore, it can be said that the complainant is also did not witness the fire accident as per Ex.A7. Ex.A5 dt:14.09.2010, certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nindra Mandal, shows that Balaji (complainant) got lands in Padiri revenue village of Nindra Mandal and he has given certain Survey Nos., according to which the extent of lands is only about Ac.3.99 cents, an extent of 11 cents in S.No.129/3B is not found place in the Adangal. Similarly, in S.No.129/16 is only 0.4 cents according to Adangal. Thus, 0.11 cents + 0.9 cents i.e. 0.20 cents was shown excessively. If 0.20 cents is deducted from 399 cents, which will be only 379 cents. However, the complainant failed to mention the S.Nos. in his complaint, so as to substantiate his pleadings with the evidence shown in Ex.A22. Ex.A22 is the photocopy of passbook in Patta No.15 stood in the name of complainant, which is only 4 pages. In the 2nd page of Ex.A22, S.Nos and last entries regarding extent of land is not visible. That apart, it is settled proposition of law that part of the document cannot be considered. The complainant ought to have file the original passbook and also atleast copy of entire passbook. As already stated Ex.A23 is also photocopy of passbook in Patta No.334 stood in the name of wife of the complainant, which is only 2 pages front page and its backside, which is not either attested or certified by any of the concerned officials. Ex.A21 as already stated relating to Patta No.222 is not relevant, as well as Ex.A23 which is also copy of passbook not attested by any competent authority 1st page of passbook and its backside. It appears prima facie that the complainant does not want to file original documents either before this Forum or even before the Hon’ble State Commission during the pendency of appeals (2). The Fire Service Authority can certify only to the extent of fire accident. Similarly other Revenue Authorities also entitled to give certificate to the extent of fire accident and loss of crop, but they cannot or they are not competent to assess high voltage if any occurred in the transformer in question.

            13.  Another aspect is that the complainant mentioned in his complaint that inspite of his repeated objections, the opposite parties have installed the transformer in his fields. No scrap of paper is filed to show that he has made any objection for installation of the transformer in his fields. Exs.A10 to A12 and Ex.A14 are the paper clippings dt:11.09.2010. As per those paper clippings, the sugarcane fields at Gangamambapuram were burnt due to short circuit in the transformer but the lands actually burnt were located in Padiri village of Nindra Mandal but not in Gangamambapuram village of Vijayapuram Mandal. In view of Ex.A5 and the discrepancies crept in the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, we have to state that there was no high voltage was passed-on to the transformer that situated in the lands of the complainant on 10.09.2010 and the high voltage as alleged may not be the root cause for the fire accident. In this regard, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that there was high voltage to an extent of 450 KV affected the transformer resulting the short circuit due to which the entire sugarcane crop was burnt. Accordingly this point is answered.    

            14.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, as stated in point No.2, the complainant failed to establish that there was negligence on the part of the opposite parties and that he made several representations as mentioned in the complaint and objected to install the transformer in his fields, that due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties only the fire accident was occurred. Admittedly, the live wires are passing over the fields of the complainant, that does not itself mean that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As could be seen from Ex.B5 Daily Log Book of the Sub-Station, no such high voltage was effected the transformer and the transformer capacity is only 25 KV but not 220 KV as alleged by the complainant. In view of the discussion made in point No.2 and the grounds now stated, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            15.  Point No.(iv):-  here another important point to be considered is admittedly the lands of the complainant were situated in Padiri revenue village of Nindra Mandal, in 2 items of S.No.125, 2 items of S.No.126, 11 items of S.No.127,   7 items of S.No.128, 8 items of S.No.129, 2 items in S.No.130, 1 item in S.No.122 and 1 more items in S.No.115. All these items of lands did not constitute a single tenement. There are some other lands in between sub-divisions of S.Nos. of the lands of the complainant. In this regard, we have to state that in S.No.127 the complainant got 11 items i.e. S.No.127/1,2,3,8,10,12,13,14,16, in between these items sub-division S.No.4,5,6,7,9 and 11 were also there. Similarly, there are some sub-divisions of lands in S.No.128 i.e. 5, 7 to 19 and S.No.129 there are some more sub-divisions from S.No.129/3 to 129/9, without burning the crops raised in the lands of other sub-divisions in some S.Nos., how the crops of complainant alone were burnt?. These all creates suspicion over the claim of the complainant. According to opposite parties there were no any other complaints of burning the crops from any other ryoths of the Padiri revenue village. Apart from this there are some discrepancies in the extent of land to that of Ex.A5 to that of the extent of lands covered by Ex.A20 and A22. In order to establish these facts, voluminous evidence is necessary and the complainant has to examine the person actually who witnessed the fire accident and the persons who issued the certificates under Exs.A2 to A6, to establish actual extent of land that was burnt in the fire accident. When the complainant is failed to establish that he is a consumer, he has to approach the appropriate Forum or the Civil Court for necessary compensation or redress his grievances. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant since failed to establish that he is a consumer, he is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            16.  Point No.(v):-  As per Section-13(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complaint before the Consumer Forum shall be decided witihn three (3) months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party. But in this case, the complainant has availed more than five and half (51/2) years for disposal of this case, defeating very object of the Act on some pretext or the other. In view of our holding on points 1 to 4, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that he is a consumer and complaint therefore is not maintainable before this Forum. In order to prove the allegations in the complaint and in his additional affidavit dt:29.09.2016 in which new pleas were introduced he has to record voluminous oral and documentary evidence. The complainant has to approach appropriate Forum such as Civil Court for redressal or to get compensation for the loss he sustained and the complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20th day of December, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Balaji @ Balaji Naidu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: R. Shankar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits

(Ex.A)

Description of Documents

  1.  

Photos 7 in number along with bill.

  1.  

A Copy of Confirmation letter issued by Revenue Inspector Netteri Cluster, Nindra. Dt: 12.09.2010.

  1.  

Fire service attendance certificate issued by the Station Fire Officer, Nagari. Dt: 13.09.2010.

  1.  

Attested copy issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer to confirm of quality of Sugar Cane, Dt: 13.09.2010.

  1.  

A Certificate issued by Tahsildar of Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District about the Firing of Sugar Cane Crop. Dt: 14.09.2010.

  1.  

Certificate issued by Chief Agricultural Officer to estimate and fix the Quality of Crop. DT: 13.09.2010.

  1.  

Statement recorded by Sarpnch of Ganga Mambapuram from the Villagers.

  1.  

Office copy of the Legal Notice along with postal receipts issued by the Complainant. Dt: 24.09.2010.

  1.  

Certificate issued by Mandal Agriculture Officer to confirm about the Burning Sugar Cane Crop. Dt: 20.09.2010.

  1.  

Paper publication in Chittoor District Edition, Eenadu Dt: 11.09.2010 at Page-4.

  1.  

Paper publication in Chittoor District Edition,  Dt: 11.09.2010 at page 12, in Andhra Jyothi.

  1.  

Paper publication in Chittoor District, Sakshi in Nagari Edition Dt: 11.09.2010.

  1.  

Postal acknowledgement number in 5.

  1.  

Paper publication in Chittoor District Edition, in Vaartha, Dt: 11.09.2010 at page number 7.

  1.  

Original C.Ds 2 in number.

  1.  

Letter addressed to the complainant by the Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited Executive Director, K. Subba Rao.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

Exhibits

(Ex.B)

Description of Documents

  1.  

A Copy of Legal Notice issued by Vellore G.Ganesh, and P.Sreenivasulu Naidu, Advocates, # 17-6-358, Aravapalle Street, Tirupati 517 501 on behalf of his client i.e., the complainant Balaji @ Balaji Naidu dt:24.09.2010.

  1.  

A Copy of Reply notice given by T.V.Subramanyam Raju, B.A., B.L., Standing Legal Advisor on behalf of the Opposite Parties i.e., APSPDCL along with courier receipt dt:14.10.2010.

  1.  

A Copy of computer generated slip of Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited –NINDRA Grower wise supply for the Season 2011-2012.

  1.  

Inspection Report of the Assistant Divisional Engineer Operation APSPDCL, Nagari filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties. Dt: 16.09.2010.

  1.  

Extract copy of Log Book Dt: 10.09.2010 of 33/11 KV of Kalikapuram sub station filed on behalf of the Opposite Parties.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                                                

                                                                                          President

                

                   // TRUE COPY //

     // BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

 

          

 Copies to:-    1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.                                           

 

 

 

    

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.