Complaint filed on: 01.07.2015
Complaint Disposed on:08.12.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.104/2015
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT
S.D.Ramesh,A/a 40 years,
S/o Sri.Dyavegowda
Resident of Sugudavani –
Siddapura Village,
Siddapura B Estate, Bidare Post,
Via: Sangameshwarapet,
Chikmagalur Taluk
(By Sri/Smt. T.C.Shivashankara, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Executive Engineer,
MESCOM, Kempanahalli,
Chikmagalur.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
MESCOM, Kempanahalli,
Chikmagalur.
3. The Junior Engieer, MESCOM,
Aldur Village, Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. H.C.Krishna, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in not providing electricity supply to his irrigation pump-set installed in survey No.240/5 situated at Sugudavani Siddapura, Jagara Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk. Hence, prays for direction against Ops to provide electricity supply to the said H.P. installation and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is an agriculturists having agricultural land in survey Nos. 240/5,236/1, 236/2, 236/3, 236/4, 246/5, 234, 355, 237, 215/4, 217/p totally measuring 16 acres situated at Sugudavani – Siddapura, Jagara Hobli, Chikmagalur. In order to irrigate the above said lands, the complainant installed 8 H.P. pump-set in survey No.240/5 and OP Nos. 1 to 3 have given electricity connection to the said 8 H.P. pump-set on 19/02/2007. As there was no sufficient voltage, the complainant at his cost and expenses, with prior permission from the Ops has erected as many as 16 poles and draw the wire, obtained service through electric contractor. In spite of these efforts, the voltage was not improved. Thereafter on 14/02/2014 an estimate was prepared for installing a separate transformer in order to supply the sufficient electricity to the lands of the complainant. The said work also completed during September 2014. In spite of completion of the said erection of transformer, the OP had not made any arrangements to supply the electricity to the said transformer. On 03/12/2014 some miscreants have removed the electricity lines illegally. Due to non supply of the electricity supply through the pole, the electricity lines were removed by miscreants. In spite of repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, the OP has not supplied the electricity supply to the lands of the complainant without any valid reasons. Hence, OP Nos. 1 to 3 rendered a deficiency in service in not supplying the electricity supply to the 8 H.P. pump-set through transformer.
Subsequently the complainant issued a legal notice dated: 12.01.2015 against OP Nos. 1 to 3 and called upon them to supply the electricity to the said transformer. In spite of service of notice the Ops neither supplied the electricity nor replied to the legal notice. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint and prays for supply of electricity along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that these Ops do not know that the complainant having agricultural lands in survey Nos. 240/5,236/1, 236/2, 236/3, 236/4, 246/5, 234, 355, 237, 215/4, 217/p totally measuring 16 acres. It is true that the complainant had obtained electricity supply to 8 H.P. pump-set in survey No.240/5 under AKRAMA SAKRAMA Scheme. In order to stabilize supply of electricity, this OP/Company decided to draw 11 K.V. line and prepared estimation in this regard. While the said work was going on, the owner of the said estate Master Pruthvi Raj and Rohan Raj were obstructed the work which is in progress and filed an injunction suit against these Ops in O.S.No.425/2014 before the Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge, at Chikmagalur and obtained an ad-interim injunction against these Ops to not to continue the work. Accordingly, these Ops have stopped the work as per the injunction order given by Civil Court at Chikmagalur and it is false that the complainant had requested several times to supply the electricity from these Ops. There is no any deficiency in service in not supplying the electricity to the complainant and they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P10. The OP also filed affidavit and memo with certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.425/2014.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. The case of the complainant is that he is having 16 acres of agricultural land in different survey numbers and had obtained electricity supply to the 8 H.P. pump-set in survey No.240/5 in order to irrigate his lands. Subsequently in order to stabilize the supply of electricity, he draw another 16 lines and erected one transformer for sufficient supply of electricity to the agricultural lands. But all of a sudden the Ops without any valid reasons, have stopped the work and electricity poles were removed by some unknown persons. The complainant requested the Ops for supply of electricity, but the Ops have not made any efforts to supply the electricity. Hence, alleges deficiency in service.
9. On contrary, the Ops have taken a contention that during the work in progress, the owners of estate Master Pruthvi Raj and Rohan Raj have obstructed the work which is in progress and filed civil suit against them in O.S.No.425/2014 before the II Addl. Civil Judge at Chikmagalur and obtained temporary injunction against the Ops. As per the direction of the Civil Court, they stopped the work. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.
10. The OP further sworn affidavit that the complainant has very well in knowledge about the suit filed by said persons and knowing fully about the suit, the complainant had filed this false complaint alleging deficiency in service.
11. On going through the order sheet in O.S.No.425/2014, the Hon’ble Civil Judge, at Chikmagalur has granted an ad-interim temporary injunction against the Ops not to continue the work which is in progress, which shows that electricity lines were drawn on the private property. Accordingly, the Ops have stopped the work which in progress. But the complainant without knowing these facts has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and constrained to send a legal notice to Ops for supply of electricity. But we are of the opinion that when there is an injunction order granted against OP Nos. 1 to 3 and they have followed the orders passed by Hon’ble Civil Court. Accordingly, they have stopped the work. We also noticed that the Ops have never denied for supply of electricity. Hence, it is only due to injunction order, the Ops have stopped the work. Hence, we found there is no deficiency in service in the part of Ops in not supplying the electricity to the complainant and complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 8th day of December 2016).
(RAVISHANKAR)
President
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA)
Member Member
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Requisition letter dated:20.02.2015 by complainant to OP
Ex.P2 - Copy of the cash paid receipt (3 number)
Ex.P3 - Letter issued by OP dated:21.02.2007
Ex.P4 - Estimation given by OP two pages
Ex.P5 - Another letter dated:24.02.07 issued by OP to complainant
Ex.P6 - Under taking letter
Ex.P7 - Another undertaking
Ex.P8 - Office Copy of the legal notice
Ex.P9&10 - Two postal acknowledgement due
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
NIL
Dated:08.12.2016 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
Tss
