JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Gururaj Member:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Basavapurniah S/o. Venkataratnam against three Respondents-(1) The Executive Engineer (OM) GESCOM Raichur., (2) The Assistant Executive Engineer (OM)Rural Sub-Division GESCOM, Raichur., (3) Junior Engineer (OM) Section GESCOM. Yeregara Tq Dist: Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-<br /> <br /> The complainant is the owner and processor of Agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 73/1 measuring 10 acres 01 guntas of Massdoddi village, 15 years back the mother of the complainant Smt. K.Sitaramamma had got two IP Set connections for 5 HP motors each under the RR.No. MSD 141 and MSD 204 during her life time for the purposes of drawing water from the bore well for irrigation of the above said land. The periodical electrical bills pertaining to the consumption of energy in-respect of the above said motors are being paid by complainant to the Respondent regularly. The transformer which is being used for the above said pump set is having capacity of 63 KV and only 12 connections of 5 HP motors can be connected to the said capacity and not beyond that. Previously there were only 12 motors of 5 HP authorized connection to the said 63 KV capacity of transformer including two RR Numbers of complainant. But gradually the Respondent allowed the un-authorized power without any RR No. and without payment of any power bill beyond the capacity of the transformer the said situation has resulted in to frequent burning of the transformer and corresponding dis-ruption of power supply to the complainant resulting los s of crop since the Respondent used to take days together to repay the effective transformer. <br /> <br /> Further it is the case of the complainant that in the year 2008 the transformer in-question burnt on account of excessive load and each time the Respondent took much time to replace the transformer, in this regard the complainant approached to the Respondent and requested to curb the practice of allowing such un-authorized connection over and above the capacity of transformer but went in vain. On 23-12-08 the transformer in question once again as usual burnt. On 01-01-09 certain formers who have got un-authorized connection to the transformer in-question demanded the complainant to pay Rs.1,000/- as contribution by saying that they have paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent NO-3 for the purposes of replacement of the effective transformer. On refusing to pay the said amount by the complainant they have illegally dis-connected the power supply to said RR. Nos. of the complainant.<br /> It is further contended that immediately the complainant brought the said incidents to the Respondents and requested to restore the power supply but so far the Respondents have not taken any action. Thereafter the complainant has also requested the Respondent No-3 by name Sri. Channabasava through mobile phone on 02-01-09 at abut 6-17 PM and requested him to restore the power supply as the standing crops of vegetables and the mango tops in his field are deprived of the water but it is also went in vain. On the same day at about 6-21 PM the complainant brought his grievances to the notice of Respondent No-1 through mobile and thereby informed the in-action on the part of the Respondent No-1 who is entrusted with the duty of supervision of the transformer in-question but all went in vain. Further the case of the complainant that the absence of watering of the crops of the complainant on account of the stoppage of power supply has already caused substantial loss. There is a deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents in not eliminating the un-authorized connection causing excessive load on the transformer in-question so also there is a deficiency on the part of the Respondents in not restoring the dis-rupted power supply to above said RR Nos. of the complainant. Hence the complainant has sought direction against the Respondents to curb the un-authorized connections forth with in future beyond the capacity of 63 KV transformer and to restore the power supply to the two RR Nos of the complainant which are connected to the transformer situated within the area of massdoddi village and has also sought compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for the loss of the crops & vegetables and the mango tops in the said 10 acres of 01 guntas of land which was deprived of water ever since the transformer was burnt and for consequential in action on the part of the Respondent in not restoring the power supply despite the complainant making repeated entries. <br /> <br /> 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel. Respondent No-3 has filed written version. The Respondent No- 1 & 2 adopts the written version of Respondent No-3. The Respondent No-3 in his written version contended that the relationship and contractual obligations between the registered consumer and the GESCOM/Respondents is governed by the contract entered into between the parties, as such if there is violation of terms and conditions of the contract the same is to be enforced before the competent Civil Court but not before this Forum and the complainant is not a registered consumer of the Respondent as such the complaint is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The Respondents further contended that he has no knowledge about the possession of agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 73/1 measuring 10 acres 01 guntas of Massdoddi village by the complainant and denied about the un-authorized power connections to the extent of 19 in numbers of 5 HP motors to various farmers without any RR Numbers and without payment of any power bill beyond the capacity of transofrmer and the said situation has resulted into frequent burning of the transformer and corresponding dis-ruption of power supply to the complainant resulting in loss of crops, and also denied about the allegation in-respect of demand put before the complainant by the other farmers to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as contribution by saying that they have paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Respondent No-3 for the purposes of replacement of effective transformer and on refusing to pay the said amount by the complainant illegally dis-connected the power supply to the RR Numbers of the complainant as it is not within the knowledge of the Respondents.<br /> Further it is the case of the Respondent that the transformer which is burnt on 08-01-08 has been replaced immediately on 11-01-08 after obtaining the order from the higher authorities vide Order No. RE/1795 and further on 30-12-08 100 KV transformer has been installed by replacing 63 KV transformer as per Order No. RF/138 dated 29-12-08 as such there is no alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and further contended that the Respondent No-3 has received the complaint on 01-01-09 at late hours at about 6-30 PM of non-supply of electricity to the pump sets, at that time due to later hours and non-availability of line-man who were on duty were engaged in attending other complaints as such on next day immediately attended the complaint of the complainant through line man Savareppa on 02-01-09 therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. <br /> It is the case of the Respondent that as per the Government directions un-authorized connections to the IP sets cannot be removed and the said un-authorized connections to be regularized; as such the Respondents cannot take any steps to dis-connect the un-authorized IP set connections to the transformer in-view of the government policy decisions. Hence Respondents contended that they are not responsible for the compensation claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of crops vegetables and mango tops due to burning of transformer and consequential in-action on the part of Respondents in not restoring the power supply and sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.<br /> <br /> 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and he has got marked (3) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3. In rebuttal the Respondent No-3 has filed sworn affidavit of Channabasavanna Junior Engineer (OM) Section Yeregera. The Respondents have not filed any documents hence no documents were marked on behalf of the Respondents. <br /> <br /> 5. Heard the arguments by the counsel for the complainant. There is no representation on behalf of the Respondents. Hence taken has no arguments on the side of the Respondents. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1. In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that he is having two IP sets connection of 5 HP motors each under RR No. MSD 141 & MSD 204 in the name of his mother Smt. Late K. Sitaramamma and the transformer in-question by which power supplying for his two IP sets is having capacity of 63 KV by which only 12 numbers 5 HP IP sets can be connected but the Respondents have given 19 IP sets of 5 HP motors which was resulted over loading on the transformer resulting in frequent burning of the transformer and corresponding dis-ruption of power supply to the complainant land and resulting in loss of crops and it is also case of the complainant that even inspite of that several requests and demands the Respondents have not made any efforts to replace the transformer and restore the power supply to the complainant IP sets. <br /> <br /> 8. It is the case of the Respondents that on 08-01-08 the transformer in-question has been burnt and same has been replaced immediately on 11-01-08 after obtaining the order from higher authorities vide Order No. RF/1795 and further on 30-12-08 100 KV transformer has been replaced as per Order No. RF/138 dt. 29-12-08 as such there is no gain saying that there is a deficiency in service on their part. Further they have contended that they have received the complaint on 01-01-09 at late hours at about 6-30 PM of non-supply of electricity to the pump set, at that time due to late hours and non availability of line man who were on duty were engaged in attending other complaint as such next date immediately attended the complaint of the complainant through line main Savarappa on 02-01-09 as such there is no any negligence or deficiency in service on their part. <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant has filed in all three documents namely: (1) two Demand Notices for RR No. MSD 141 & 204 dt. 02-09-04 issued by the Respondents (2) Two numbers of receipts for having paid the electricity bill MSD IP No. 141 & MSD IP No. 204. (3) ROR of land Sy.No. 73/1/aa.<br /> <br /> 10. From the close perusal of Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 i.e, Demand Notices and receipts for having paid the electricity bill particularly from Ex.P-1 it is very clear that the two IP sets were stands in the name of Smt. K. Sitaramamma W/o. Venkataratnam who is the mother of complainant and registered consumer of the Respondents for which the Respondents have received the electricity bills pertaining to the consumption of energy in-respect of the pump sets, RR Nos. MSD 141 & MSD 204. The Ex.P-3 is the ROR which is clearly shows that the complainant is the absolute owner and in possession of agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 73/1 situated in Massdoddi village. Further it is clear that after the death the mother of the complainant the complainant has succeeded his mother and he has became consumer to the Respondent Office. Under these circumstances the contention of the Respondents that the complainant is not a registered consumer of the Respondent holds no good. <br /> <br /> 11. It is the case of the Respondents that they have replaced the transformer in-question immediately after receipt of the complaint about its burn and have also replaced with 100 KV when they came to know about the over loading of the transformer vide Order No. RF/1795 and RF/138 but in-order to prove this contention Respondents have not produced any documents. In the absence of such documents this Forum cannot hold that they have responded immediately after receipt of the complaint from the complainant. Under these circumstances this Forum cannot hold that the Respondents have made any efforts to replace the transformer in-question in time whenever it caused problems to the complainant and other registered consumers who are having connection with the said transformer in-question. Hence this Forum holds that there is negligence on the part of the Respondents.<br /> <br /> 12. The Respondents in Para-11 of the written version have contended that as per the Government directions un-authorized connections to the IP set are allowed and same cannot be removed and same will be regularized, for that reason they cannot take any steps to dis-connect the same connected to the transformer in-question and they have also contended that it is a Government decision. Of course Government might have made such policies in order to protect the interest of the farmers. But it is not the case of the complainant that he demands disconnection of the un-authorized connections but he has demanded only to remove and curb the un-authorized connections beyond the capacity of 63 KV transformer and to increase the capacity to the extent of 100 KV and above which will have capacity to supply the power regularly to the pump sets without any interruption. In-our view the contention of the complainant in this regard cannot be hold that it is an against the Government decision or against the policy of Respondents. The demand of the complainant in-replacement of the transformer and for regular supply of electricity without any interruption is bonafide one. But the Respondents are totally failed to respond the demand of the complainant hence we hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the Respondents therefore they are liable for the loss caused to the complainant. Hence Point No-1, is answered in the Affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 30,000/- along with directions to remove and curb the un-authorized connections forth with in future beyond the capacity of 63 KV transformer and restore the power supply to the two RR Nos. of the complainant which are connected to the transformer situated within the area of Massdoddi village. For the relief of the direction regarding remove and curb the un-authorized connections in future beyond the capacity of 63 KV transformer and restore the power supply to two RR Nos. is concerned, in-view of our discussions and finding on Point No-1, the Respondents are hereby directed to replace the sufficient capacity transformer to the IP set of complainant and restore the power supply. Further for the relief of compensation of Rs. 30,000/- is concerned, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that what type of crops and vegetables he has grown in his land and what was the loss he has sustained, in-respect of mango tops. The Ex.P-3 the ROR filed by the complainant is also not particular about the crop and there is no mention the name of the crop in it, in the absence of this the complainant is not entitled to claim such quantum of amount as he has prayed however by holding his in-convenience in getting the electricity to his pump set by the negligent act of the Respondents and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to award Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant including deficiency in service and cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part against the Respondents.<br /> <br /> 1. The Respondents 1 to 3 are hereby directed to replace the sufficient capacity of transformer in place of 63 KV transformers and restore the power supply to the RR No. MSD 141 & MSD 204 of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 2. The Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation.<br /> <br /> The Respondents shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 17-07-09)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur<br /> <br /> <br />