PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

      Tuesday, 28^th September 2010

 

 

 

 

          This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 23-9-2010 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for complainant and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

 

1.                Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant’s family was having landed property in Madanagopalapuram villge, Rajampet in an extent of Ac. 4.84 cents in the name of complainant’s son.   The Electricity Service Connection to the lands was in the name of the complainant and was using the same since 7-9-1993 with agricultural service connection No. 57 and the Respondents got issued electricity slab pass book in favour of the complainant.   The charges were paid regularly. The complainant paid Rs. 1,860/- on 17-7-2009 under receipt No. 545424 towards C.C. and maintenance charges upto May 2009 to the Respondents.  

 

3.                The Respondents engaged contractor for doing HVDS works in the area where the land of the complainant’s family was situated. The Respondents removed the existing old service line of the complainant during September 2009 and assured to provide a new service line. Even after lapse of one month the Respondents did not take any steps to provide service line to the complainant.   She approached the contractor, who informed that there was scarcity of electricity wires which should be provided by the respondents and therefore, the service line could not be provided to the complainant.   The complainant immediately approached the R1 and gave a written complaint dt. 26-11-2009 requesting to provide service line to her fields as her mango garden reached to blossom stage and supply of electricity was essential for watering the trees. The Respondents assured that he would take necessary steps for providing service connection but he did not take any action. On 5-1-2010 and 2-2-2010 the complainant sent complaints by registered post to R1 for not providing service connection and loss of her mango garden due to non availability of electricity supply. It was received but they did not send any reply.   Therefore, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to her 200 mango tress existing in the garden on account of non – availability of electricity supply @ Rs. 1,000/- towards loss per tree.  Thus the complaint was filed for providing electricity service line to the service connection No. 57 of the complainant and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of mango garden and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs. 

 

4.                The R1 filed a counter adopted by R2 with a memo. It was not correct that the complainant’s family was having Ac. 4.84 cents of land in Madanagopalapuram village, Rajampet and the complainant paid charges regularly and no dispute with regard to service number.   It was not correct that the Respondents engaged contractors to set up HVDS work for transformers and connection provided to the farmers. It was not correct that the Respondents assured to provide new service line while removing the existing service line of the complainant. The Respondents never removed the old service line. The complainant did not implead the contractor. It was a created story that the contractor informed the scarcity of electricity wire. If it was correct the contractor could be impleaded as a necessary party. There was no prevention to add the contractor as party.  The complainant got issued a notice to R1, who immediately rushed to the spot and found electricity by providing the lines at the cost of the complainant. It was not correct that the complainant sustained a loss of              Rs. 1,000/- per tree and the loss of crop to Rs. 200 mango trees was due to not providing water. There was no certificate from Agricultural Officer or Revenue Officials that the trees did not get blossom and loss was sustained. The age of the trees was not mentioned. The lands were in the name of Mahesh Kumar, who had to file the complaint and seek relief but not by the complainant. If there was no electricity the trees would die for not providing water. There was no death of any tree and so there was no loss. There was no documentary proof of loss of crop.   Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs. 

 

5.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

i.                   Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents?

ii.                 Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii.              To what relief?

 

6.                On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of the Respondents Ex. B1 & B2 were marked.      

 

7.                Point No. 1& 2.   The complainant’s family was having Ac. 4.84 cents of dry land under different survey Nos. in the name of Pandeti Mahesh Kumar, S/o Raghupati Raju in Madanagopalapuram, Rajampet Mandal. The said Mahesh Kumar was given pattadar passbook. The Photostat copy of pattadar passbook was Ex. A6. The land was in the name of Mahesh Kumar and the electricity agricultural service connection No. 57 was in the name of complainant, who was the mother of the said Mahesh Kumar. To prove the same the complainant filed Ex. A1 a Photostat copy of electricity slab pass book issued in 1993. It was not a surprise that the electricity connection was in the name of one person and the land was in the name of another person with possession and enjoyment. It was so difficult to get change of name with land owner in the electricity services connection. Therefore, it was not a ground to disbelieve that the land did not belong to complainant’s family, because the land was in the name of son and the service connection was in the name of the mother. The objection of the Respondents on that ground was not a tenable objection. The complainant paid Rs. 1,860/- towards C.C. maintenance charges to ASC No. 57 on 17-7-2009 under receipt No. 545424 up to May 2009. The Photostat copy of receipt was Ex. A2. While so the Respondents engaged some contractors  for doing HVDV works in the area where the complainant’s land was situated. The Respondents in order to give assistance to the contractor for doing HVDC work removed the existing old service line of the complainant in September 2009 and did not draw a new line even after one month later. 

8.                The complainant approached the Divisional Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Rajampet on 26-11-2009, 5-1-2010 and 2-2-2010 and submitted written representations. The Photostat copies of written representations were Ex. A3, A4 and A5 requesting to provide new line and avoid loss of mango crop.  Even, then the Respondents had not taken any steps to provide the new line.   The complainant filed Ex. A7 a certificate issued by V.R.O Tallapaka, Rajampet Mandal about loss of mango crop approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- in an extent of Ac. 4.84 cents due to lack of water from electricity motor. On the other hand the Respondents filed Ex. B1 colour photos of mango trees. There was no proof that the mango tress showed in Ex. B1 belonged to the complainant.   Ex. B2 was a letter from Horticulture Office, Departmental Computer Center, MG-NREGS, Horticulture programme, Rajampet to the Asst. Engineer, Rural, APSPDCL, Rajampet, dt. 20-9-2010, who stated that no consumer of electricity of M.G. Puram of Rajampet Mandal in survey Nos. 15/1, 15/9, 15/10B, 18/4, 18/5 of M.G. Puram had not reported any mango crop loss due to any reason sofar. The Respondents failed to produce his letter AE/R/RJP/F12/D.No. 861/10, dt.  19-9-2010 to Horticulture Officer. The mango crop would be from March to July in every year. After July there would be no crop except one or two mangos to a tree. There was no scope for blossoms or putha to the tree from July onwards.  The blossom to a tree would be after Sankranti every year. The Ex. B2 is dated 20-9-2010 and the complaint was filed in May 2010.  The respondents made their appearance through their advocate on 15-7-2010. The R2 addressed the letter to the Horticulture Officer on19-9-2010 and the Horticulture Officer wrote a letter which was on 20-9-2010. Therefore, Ex. B2 was got prepared with subsequent thought. The complainant’s loss stated in the complaint was due to non providing new electricity line by the Respondents to service connection No. 57 after September 2009 and therefore, there was no mango crop and the complainant had a loss.  Therefore, there was no scope to all the mango garden farmers would report to Horticulture officer that they had no loss of mango crop.  So observation made in Ex. B2 was general observation on all the mango garden farmers.   However, there was no proper proof with any calculation with regard to loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the mango crop for 200 trees. There was no proof that the complainant had 200 mango trees. It was no doubt that the complainant might have mango trees but there were no proof for 200 trees. There was every possibility to the complainant to approach the superior officers of the respondent with her grievance to provide new service line. But she was silent. Therefore, it was the duty of the respondents to provide the disconnecting electricity line with connection to save the crop of agriculturists. They failed to do so from September 2009. Therefore, there is deficiency of service. Thus the complainant is entitled to new service electricity line with connection from the Respondents. There is no proper proof for loss of crop.  Hence, the points are answered accordingly. 

 

9.                Point No. 3. In the result, the complainant is partly allowed without costs and compensation, directing the R1 & R2 to provide electricity service line with connection to ASC No. 57 of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

 Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 28^th September 2010

 

 

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                                  For Respondent :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -  

 

Ex. A1         P/c of A.P.S.E.B slab pass book Service No. 57 issued in favour of the

Ex. A2         P/c of bill No. 545424for Rs. 1,860/-, dt. 17-7-2009.

Ex. A3         P/c of letter from complainant to R1, dt. 26-11-2009.

Ex. A4         P/c of letter from complainant to R1, dt. 5-1-2010 along with

acknowledgement and postal receipt.

Ex. A5         P/c of letter from complainant to R1, dt. 2-2-2010 with postal receipt

and acknowledgement.

Ex. A6         P/c of pattadar passbook issued in favour P. Mahesh Kumar.

Ex. A7         Certificate dt. 4-9-2010 issued by VRO, Tallapaka village, Rajampet

Mandal, Kadapa District.        

 

Exhibits marked for Respondents : -         

 

 

 

 

            1) Copy was made ready on:

2) Copy was dispatched on:

            3) Copy was delivered to parties: