Karnataka

Kolar

CC/41/2017

G.S.Narayanaswamy s/o late Subbanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer Bengaluru Vidhyuth Company - Opp.Party(s)

K.Manjunatha

17 Mar 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10/05/2017

Date of Order: 17/03/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 17^th DAY OF MARCH 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 41 OF 2017

Sri.G.S.Narayanaswamy,

S/o Late Subbanna,

Aged about 50 years,

Agriculturist,

R/o Gollahalli,Munganahalli

Hobli,Mindigal post,

Chintamani taluk,

Chikkaballapur District.                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. K. Manjunatha, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1.The Executive Engineer

Bengaluru Vidhyuth Company

Work and Maintenance

Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani.

 

2.The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elecl.),

Bengaluru Vidhyuth Company

Work and Maintenance

Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani.

 

3.The Junior Engineer/Section Officer

Bengaluru Vidhyuth Company

Work and Maintenance,

Kencharlahalli  Branch

Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani.

(OP-1 to 3 are Rep. by Smt. B.S. Vijaya Kumari, Advocate)   …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for travelling and other expenses with cost and such other reliefs as this Forum deems fit.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, he is an agriculturist and having landed properties at Gollahalli Village, Munganahalli Hobli, Mindigal Post, Chintamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and having one bore-well out of which he is raising commercial crops. The complainant has dug one more bore well in his another land and got sufficient water to raise more crops and to earn more income.

 

(a)    The complainant applied for additional electric connection before the Ops for installation of 63 KVA T.C. point.  Accordingly estimation and sketch were prepared in the year 2012 to install the T.C. point in the middle of the tank and the complainant pleaded problems if installed in the said point by giving letter.  After receipt of the letter Ops have not cared to install the T.C. point and he made complaint to the higher authorities against the Ops.  The higher authorities made order dated: 22.02.2017 with a direction to prepare revised estimation. 

 

(b)    The complainant has suffered heavy loss for non-installation of the said power and if the installation was made earlier he would have been earned profit to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/-.  And the said loss was caused to him by the Ops and they are responsible for the same.  The complainant issued legal notice dated: 28.02.2017 calling upon the Ops to pay the loss caused to him.  But the Ops neither complied the same nor replied to it.  Hence this complaint.

 

(c)    The complainant has produced below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of estimate dated: 29.09.2012 issued by Ops (08 in numbers).

(ii) Intimation letter (original) issued by Ops to complainant dated: 23.04.2016.

(iii) Endorsed copy of the requisition issued to the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sanga Hagu Hasiru Sene issued to Ops dated: 19.10.2016.

(iv) Endorsed copy of complaint given by the complainant dated: 10.04.2016 to one of the OP.

(v) Endorsed copy of the objections to stop the illegal bill issued to the complainant dated: 22.03.2017.

(vi) Copy of the complaint issued by the complainant to Managing Director, BESCOM, Corporate Office, K.R. Circle, Bangalore, dated: 05.12.2016.

(vii) Endorsed copy of the complaint given to the complainant to the BESCOM, Kolar, dated: 06.07.2017.

(viii) Original information letter issued by the OP dated: 30.12.2016 to the complainant under RTI.

(ix) Endorsed copy of the complaint given by the complainant to the OP.

(x) Original daily state news paper of “Samyuktha Karnataka” dated: 15.12.2016 having news regarding the complainant’s inconvenience and grievance.

(xi) Original recent computerized copies of RTC’s of the complainant (five in number).

(xii) Original Bills two in numbers regarding the investment and expenditure of complainant.

(xiii) Original photographs of power starts, three in number

(xiv) Office copy of the legal notice issued in favour of complainant to the OP dated: 28.02.2017.

(xv) Original postal receipts of the legal notice three in number issued by the postal department dated: 28.02.2017.

(xvi) Original acknowledgments three in number to show the service of notice to the Ops.

(xvii) Amount issued bills issued by the APMC, Chintamani, having sold tomato by complainant worth Rs.3,10,000/-.

(xix) One original amount issued bill issued by Swetha Onion and Potato merchant Keerthinagr Chintamani to the complainant having sold onion by the complainant on 21.08.2017 worth Rs.2,08,000/-.

(xx) Copy of the agreement for having pledged the property of the complainant to the bank while receiving bank loan.

(xxi) Original tomato mandy supplied and amount paid bill issued by the TR5 tomato mandy APMC Market, N.Vaddahalli Mulbagal, No.5497, dated: 25.11.2002.

(xxii) Original tomato supplied and amount received bills 2 in number issued by Sri Venkateshwara Tomato and Vegitable Commission Mundy, APMC market, N.Vaddahalli, Mulbagal Taluk, dated: 22.12.2008 and 30.12.2008 (N.R.S. Mundy).

(xxiii) two original colour photographs of onion crops grown by the complainant to show the recent crops pertaining to the year 2017-18 after getting power connection.

(xxiv) Original Vegetable supplied and amount paid bills issued by the Sri Lakshmivenkateshwara Commission Mundy to show that, the agricultural income of the complainant during 2017-18.

 

03.   The Ops appeared through their counsel.  OP Nos.2 & 3 filed version and OP No.1 adopted the same.

 

04.   Ops have denied about digging of bore-well and got sufficient water as they have no knowledge about the same and denied the rest of the para-2, 3, 5 to 8 of the allegations made in the complaint.  The Ops contended that, the complainant approached the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chintamani on 13.04.2016 with false facts.  The Legal Service Committee issued letter to BESCOM dated: 26.12.2016, the AEE of BESCOM Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani, replied the same on 02.01.2017 and in that reply the BESCOM stated that, there was no sanction for install 63 KVA Transformer.  And they have not installed the same.  On 12.09.2016 estimation was made for installation of 63 KVA Transformer and the same is send to AEE, Chintamani Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani, on 29.09.2016.  The additional 63 KVA DTC charged on 23.03.2017.  And on 17.03.2017 service given to KCIP 780 for 10 HP, which belongs to the complainant and the complainant utilized the same for his agricultural purpose and cultivated the crops.    The cause of action arose on 20.03.2017 is not true and correct.  The OP had not at all done anything wrong in respect of complainant and praying compensation does not arise.  The complainant has filed false case against the OP and prays this Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

(a) The Ops have produced below mentioned documents:-

(i) Bill in respect of RR No. KCIP 780 showing sanctioned 10 HP to complainant.

(ii) Letter given by complainant to Taluk Legal Service Committee, Chintamani, dated: 13.04.2016.

(iii) Letter given by Taluk Legal Service Committee, Chintamani, to AEE, BESCOM, Chintamani, dated: 26.12.2016.

(iv) Reply letter isused by AEE, BESCOM, Chintamani to Taluk Legal Service Committee, Chintamani, dated: 02.01.2017.

(v) Letter of complainant to BESCOm dated: 06.12.2016.

(vi) Estimate given for install 63 KVA transformer in addition to 100 KVA Transformer by EE, C.O & M Division, BESCOM, Chintamani, comes to Chintamani Rural Sub-Division, Kencharlahalli Division, Near Yendhalli Village and along with connected papers.

(vii) Work completion certificate dated: 14.03.2017.

(viii) Notice issued by complainant to EE, AEE and JE, BVCW & M, Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani.

(ix) Two photos of connection install 63 KVA.

(x) Copy of Electricity Traiff-2017, Tariff Schedule LT-4(a), LT-4(b) and LT-4(c).

 

05.   On 07.08.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted affidavit of complainant by way of examination-in-chief.  On 18.09.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP No.2 has submitted affidavit of one Sri. P.V. Srinivas Kumar, AEE, BESCOM, Chintamani, by way of examination-in-chief.

 

06.   On 09.10.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted written arguments of the complainant and on 23.10.2017 the learned counsel appearing for Ops had submitted Ops written arguments.

 

07.   Heard oral arguments of both sides.

 

08.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

POINT No (1):-         Whether the complaint filed by the

complainant is maintainable?

 

POINT No (2):- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

 

POINT No (3):-         What order?

 

09.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      In the Negative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) & (2):-

10.   These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.  The complainant has specifically contended that, he is an agriculturist having own bore-well and he was raising commercial crops and he intended to install another bore-well in another land to get more income.  And in that regard he has applied for power supply of 63 KVA T.C. point before the OP and estimation and sketch was also prepared as per Annexure-1 bearing No. NS-39/29-9-12.  But on perusal of Annexure-2 dated: 23.04.2016 issued by the OP No.2 to the complainant letter dated: 13.04.2016 it revealed that, the said estimate was of the year 2012 and the same cannot be installed and after taking approval of the estimation of additional 63 KVA for the present year, they will install the same.  The said complainant letter dated: 13.04.2016 i.e., Annexure-4 clearly goes to show about the negligence of the complainant as the complainant has not made any correspondence with the OPs as per Annexure-1 i.e., No. NS-39/29-9-12 and slept over the matter and he opened his eyes only on 13.04.2016 as per Annexure-4 and to the said Annexure-4 OP has replied as per Annexure-2.  And there is no negligence on the part of the Ops.  The negligence is on the part of the complainant himself.  As per Annexure-1 the estimation and sketch was dated 29.09.2012 and there was no any correspondence between the complainant and the Ops in that regard and the complaint is to be filed within two years from 29.09.2012 i.e., the date of cause of action.  But the complainant has filed this complaint on 10.05.2017 and there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable.  Further it is relevant to state here that, the complainant has also not filed any application for condoning the delay.

 

11.   In this regard we relay rulings reported in Consumer Protection Judgments for the month of November-2017 edition at Page-339 between Archana Patel V/s National Insurance Company Limited and another citation reported in Page-19B between Jet Airways India Limited V/s Satyaprakash Bansal wherein in the first citation his lordship of NCDRC have observed about the “gross negligence and deliberate inaction is imputable to petitioner – delay not condoned” and in the second citation “mere sending notice does not give rise to fresh cause of action and mere submission of legal notice or representation to competent authority does not arrest time” and the complaint is barred by limitation.  The principles of the above said rulings are attracted to the above said facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

 

12.   The Ops have contended and sworn that, on 16.09.2016 estimation was made for installation of 63 KVA transformer and the same is sent to AEE, Chintamani Rural Sub-Division, Chintamani by EE (Elel.) C.O & M Division, BESCOM, Chintamani on 29.09.2016.  This additional 63 KVA DTC charged on 23.03.2017 and service given to KCIP 780 for 10 HP which belongs to complainant and the complainant utilized the same for his agriculture purposes and cultivate crop.  The said facts clearly goes to show that, there is no deficiency of service by OPs. 

 

13.   The above said material facts as discussed above clearly goes to show that, there is no negligence any on the part of the Ops and the negligence is on the complainant only.  And the contention of the complainant that, he has caused loss of Rs.10,00,000/- due to the negligence act of the Ops is not sustainable and are all goes in vain.

 

14.   Hence under these facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above we answered Point (1) & (2) in the negative.

 

POINT (3):-

15.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable as the same is barred by time.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 17^th DAY OF MARCH 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT