BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 112/10.
THIS THE 18th DAY OF JULY 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER
*****
COMPLAINANT :- 1. Bheemappa S/o. Basappa
2. Basappa S/o. Mallappa
3. Pakirappa S/o. Bheemappa Vakrani
4. Hanuanthappa S/o. Bhimappa
5. Holeppa S/o. Hanumgouda
6. Hulagappa S/o. Kalappa
7. Basappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.M.
8. Basamma W/o. Manappa.P.
9. Manappa S/o. Somappa
10. Sanjeevappa S/o. Shivappa.P.
11. Bhemeshappa S/o. Shivappa.P.
12. Ramappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.M.
13. Sanjeevappa S/o. Huligeppa Melinamani
14. Bhimappa S/o. Basappa
15. Semappa S/o. Basappa
16. Sangappa S/o. Balappa.M.
17. Basappa S/o. Hanumappa
18. Holeppa S/o. Basappa
19. Kanakappa S/o. Basappa.H.
20. Chandappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.D.
21. Sanjeevappa S/o. Hanumappa
22. Durugappa S/o. Somappa
23. Adappa S/o. Somappa
24. Gaddevva W/o. Huliappa
25. Sanjeevappa S/o. Chattrappa A.
26. Nagappa S/o. Sanjeevappa
27. Hanumappa S/o. Chatrappa
28. Adappa S/o. Chatrappa
29. Sanjeevgouda S/o. Bhimangouda
30. Sanbasavangouda S/o. Bhimangouda Police Patil
31. Doddabasavangouda S/o. Bhimangouda Police Patil
32. Bhimangouda S/o. Hanmangouda
33. Durgappa S/o. Hanumappa H.
34. Bhimappa S/o. Sanjeevappa D since dead by LR Amarappa S/o. Bheemappa
35. Amarappa S/o. Hanumappa.H
36. Chandamma W/o. Bhimangouda Police Patil
37. Amarappa S/o. Mallappa.Y.
38. Hanumappa S/o. Basappa.Y.
39. Amarappa S/o. Basappa
40. Somappa S/o. Basappa
41. Hanumangouda S/o. Durgappa
42. Basappa S/o. Hanumappa.M.
43. Amarappa S/o. Parappa, since dead by LR Ambamma W/o. Yallappa
44. Yellappa S/o. Bhimappa
45. Sanbasappa S/o. Hanumappa
46. Bhimappa S/o. Basappa
47. Sanjeevappa S/o. Basappa
48. Durgappa S/o. Hanumappa
All are majors & agriculturists and resident of Karagadadi village, Tq. Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. Assistant Executive Engineer, O&M Sub
Division, GESCOM, Lingasugur, Dist: Raichur.
2. The Managing Director, GESCOM Gulbarga, Gulbarga.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposites to pay an amount of
Rs. 16,83,000/- with 12% interest and to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency in their service with cost.
Date of institution :- 02-12-10.
Notice served :- 11-01-11.
Date of disposal :- 18-07-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M.Swamy, Advocate.
Opposites represented by Sri. B.P.H., Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi, President:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant No-1 Bheemappa & 47 others complainants are all residents of Karagadadi village of Lingasugur Tq. against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 GESCOM Lingasugur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, for to direct the opposites to pay an amount of Rs. 16,83,000/- with 12% interest and to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency in their service with cost.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, all of them are farmers in Kadadaragaddi village of Lingasugur Tq, having their lands situated in the limits of the said village, they are authorized customers of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 having electric supply to their IP sets installed in their respective lands for irrigation by dragging water from Krishna River. Some of the complainants are cultivating lands by irrigating with consent from their owners of the lands.
3. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 authorities installed only one transformer, from which most of the irrigation pump sets of the complainants, others are having connections along with domestic use of the electricity in the village. Opposites are not properly maintaining the transformer fixed by maintaining normal voltage for irrigation purpose, always there was a low voltage, there is a wide gap between demand of electricity by the farmers and supply of electricity by the opposites through said transformer, due to such shortage of power supply, the farmers were not able to use pump sets to feed to water to the standing crop of their respective lands in the year 2008. So many representations were made, but opposites not tried to maintain the required voltage for to run their pump sets, due to such negligence of the opposites there was irregular supply and all the complainants have suffered loss of groundnut crop in the year 2008 to the extent of 60 to 80%. Hence there was deficiency in service on the part of opposites in non maintaining proper power and required supply through transformer and thereby both of them are found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly all of them have prayed for to award the reliefs as noted in this joint complaint.
4. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed detail written version by contending that, this complaint is barred by limitation, the joint complaint of all the complainants is not maintainable. All the complainants are not the customers of the department. Some of the farmers as noted in Page No-2 of their written version are only customers of them, others are not the customers of the department. Sanctioned load for domestic consumers is 1.44 KW, IP sets load comes to 97.5 HP. As such there is no excess created load to the transformers, hence there is no deficiency in service. The allegations made in the complaint are created for to get unlawful monetary benefit. The farmers might have lost the groundnut in the summer season of 2008 for other reasons and not for low voltage of electricity to the transformer. All other allegations are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant Nos. 1 to 48 have proved the negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as alleged in their joint complaint and thereby opposite Nos. 1 & 2 found guilty under deficiency in their service?
2. Whether complainant Nos. 1 to 48 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In affirmative.
(2) In affirmative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of one Bhimappa-complainant No-1 was filed, he was noted as PW-1. Affidavit-evidence of member of Raitha Sangha of Gudiyala village by name Amaranna was filed, he was noted as PW-2. Additional affidavit-evidence of PW-1 was filed on 06-04-11. Totally documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-46 are marked. Opposites filed interrogatories and objections filed without answers.
8. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) O&M Section of GESCOM, Lingasugur was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 filed. Interrogatories filed by the complainants to RW-1, but RW-1 not filed answers.
9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainants and opposites, we have noted some of the legal points raised by them in this case, as such we have taken those legal aspects of this case for discussion and thereafter we will discuss the factual aspects of this case.
10. The first legal point raised by the opposite is that, complaint is barred by limitation in view of section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, accordingly, he prayed for to dismiss the complaint as it is time barred.
11. The learned advocate for opposite submitted before us that, this complaint is not barred by limitation. All the complainants have sustained loss of their groundnut crop raised in summer season 2008, due to non maintaining proper voltage to the said transformers. He referred representations given by PW-2 vide Ex.P-2, which is a representation given to Hon’ble Chief Minister of Karnataka with a copy to opposites, thereafter legal notice was issued and opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have given their reply notice dt. 10-11-08 vide Ex.P-6, as such this complaint is in time as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act.
12 In the light of the submissions made on both sides, we have gone through the pleadings of the complainants as well as the opposites and their evidences and interrogatories, we are definite that, the complainants are contending that they have sustained loss of groundnut crop raised in the year 2009 due to non supply of proper electricity to their respective pump sets from the transformer, as such there is no ambiguity in saying that, the alleged loss to the said farmers in respect of the groundnut was in the year 2008.
13. On perusal of Ex.P-2, which is representation dt. 13-12-08 and reply notice Ex.P-6 issued by opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to the complainants dt. 10-11-09, clearly goes to show that, these complainants have got cause of action from 10-11-09 when the opposites denied the demand of complainants vide Ex.P-2. Admittedly this complaint was filed by them on 02-12-10. As per section 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act, the complaint has to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action. So this complaint filed by these complainants on 02-12-10 on the basis of cause of action arisen to them on 10-11-09 is under limitation period as required U/sec. 24(A)(1) of C.P. Act. Hence we have not agreed with the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites in this regard and accordingly the said ground of opposites to reject the complaint, as it is time barred is rejected.
14. The second legal ground, which was raised by the opposites in this case is that, the single complaint on behalf of these 48 complainants is not maintainable, as individual consumer has got individual RR.No. with different date of connections and the alleged negligence shows different cause of action. Hence single complaint is not maintainable. The learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, this single complaint is maintainable U/sec. 12(1)(C) of C.P. Act, even though complainants might be of different land owners, however all of them have dragging power supply to their respective pump sets through one transformer, all of them have lost groundnut crop raised in their respective lands in the year 2008, as such all of them have got similar interest and they are entitled for to file a single complaint on behalf of U/sec. 12(1)(c) of C.P. Act. In the light of the submissions made on both sides, in this regard, we have referred the order sheet of this case dt. 20-12-10. On that day, we have heard IA-1 filed by the complainant for permission to file a single complaint on behalf of other consumers. In pursuance of the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in this regard on that day and in pursuance of the facts noted in IA-1, we have allowed IA-1 with small considered order and IA-1 was allowed, and complainants were permitted to file this complaint jointly as all of them having same interest with single cause of action.
15. This order attains its finality, as opposites have not challenged this order after their appearance before the higher Forum, as such we have no jurisdiction to dismiss this complaint on the ground that, this joint complaints not maintainable. Accordingly this contention of the opposite is rejected and we are of the view that, the order passed by this Forum dt. 29-12-10 prevails till today and the single complaint on behalf of all the complaints is maintainable.
16. Now, coming to the factual aspects of the case of parties, there is no dispute that, the following (10) complainants out of 48 complainants are the consumers of opposites, in view of admission of it by the opposites in Para-6 on Page No-2 namely:
(1) Complainant No-2 Basappa S/o. Malappa vide receipt Ex.P-1(1)
(2) Complainant No-9 Manappa S/o. Somappa vide electricity bill Ex.P-1.
(3) Complainant No-18 Holeppa S/o. Basappa.
(4) Complainant No-23 Adappa S/o. Somappa.
(5) Complainant No-32 Bhimanagouda S/o. Hanumangouda vide bill Ex.P-1(16).
(6) Complainant No-33 Durgappa S/o. Hanumappa.H.
(7) Complainant No-44 Yellappa S/o. Bhimappa.
(8) Complainant No-38 Hanumappa S/o. Basappa.Y.
(9) Complainant No-17 Basappa S/o. Hanumappa vide Ex.P-1(3).
10) Complainant No-47 Sanjeevappa S/o. Basappa.
17. In view of admission by the opposites, as all the above (10) complainants are the consumers of it, then there is no necessity for us to discuss the related documents in detail to come to the conclusion that they are the consumers of opposites. Further it is a fact that, all the said opposites are having their own respective lands as noted in the complaint on Page No-3, as such the related RORs marked in this case are not referred specifically through ascertain their ownership and possession and cultivation of those lands by dragging water from the Krishna River by using power supply from the said transformer.
18. Now, we have to see as to whether the remaining (38) complainants are the consumers or all of them are un-authorizedly using the power to lift the water from Krishna River as contended by the opposites in their written version, evidence and at the time of arguments.
19. The complainants have filed number of receipts to show that they are the consumers of opposites 1 & 2.
20. Ex.P-1(4) receipt is pertaining to RR.No. KDGIP 53187 which shows the name of Bhimappa S/o. Basappa is he the customer of opposites. Hence the said Bhimappa complainant No-14 is a customer of opposite Nos. 1 & 2. There are cannot be contrary view as opposites received electricity tariff and issued that bill. Hence there is no strength in the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites to say that this complainant No-14 Bhimappa is not the consumer of it.
21. Similarly Ex.P-1(5) electricity bills issued by the opposites in respect of KDGIP-10, shows the name of complainant No-15 Semappa S/o. Basappa, Ex.P1(6) is pertaining to KDGIP-556390 belongs to complainant No-16 Sangappa S/o. Balappa, Ex.P-1(7) receipt pertains to KDGIP-53181 pertains to complainant No-19 Kanakappa S/o. Basappa, complainant No-20 Chandappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.D., and complainant No-21 Sanjeevappa S/o. Hanumappa, Ex.P-1(9) pertains to KDGIP-13 belongs to complainant No-22 Durgappa S/o. Somappa and complainant No-23, Ex.P-1(10) and Ex.P-1(11) are pertaining to KDGIP-11 pertains to complainant No-3 Pakeerappa complainant No-4 Hanumappa and complainant No-5 Holeppa, Ex.P-1(12) is the receipt pertains to KDGIP-56403 stands in the name of complainant No-6 Huligeppa, Ex.P-1(13) is a receipt pertains to KDGIP 56387 pertains to complainant No-7 Basappa, Ex.P-1(22) pertaining to a receipt of KDGIP-16 which pertains to complainant No-34, Ex.P-1(24), Ex.P-1(25) Ex.P-1(26) & Ex.P-1(35) are pertaining to one Chandamma W/o. Bhimangouda but others names are not pleaded in his complaint. Ex.P-27 receipt pertaining to KDGIP 42089 which stands in the name of complainant No-37 Amarappa, complainant No-38 Hanumappa and complainant No-39 Amarappa, Ex.P-1(30) is a receipt pertaining to pumpset KDGIP 56402 pertaining to complainant No-42 Basappa S/o. Hanumappa, Ex.P-1(31) KDGIP-14 pertaining to complainant No-43 Ambamma, Ex.P-1(33) is in the receipt pertaining to KDGIP 56404 pertaining to complainant-45 Sanabasappa S/o.Hanumappa.
In view of the above said receipts issued by the opposites, all of them are consumers of it, it cannot deny their relationship of those persons as a consumer with it, hence, the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites in this regard is not accepted and we came to a conclusion that those totally (19) complainants as noted above are also the consumers of opposite Nos. 1 & 2.
22. As regards to the complainant No-1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 to 31, 35, 40, 41, 46 & 48 totally (19) complainants not proved the fact that, they are the consumers of opposites by producing any single paper in support of their claim. Mere filing affidavit of PW-1 & PW-2 not sufficient to hold that these (19) complainants are the consumers of opposites even though they might be lifting water from Krishna River to their respective lands by dragging power supply through the said transformer by illegal means which cannot give right to them to say that, they are consumers under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, accordingly, we have accepted the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposites in respect of these (19) complainants, as those are not consumers.
23. Now, the fact is very much clear that, the above said (29) complainants are cultivating their respective lands as noted on Page No-2 of the complaint by dragging water from Krishna River by using power supply through the said transformer. This fact is supported by document Ex.P-3 which is a report of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Lingasugur and further, it is very much clear that, the standing groundnut crop in their respective lands not given properly yield due to shortage of moisture in the land, that means there was no proper water feeding to the said crop and thereby all the said farmers sustained loss to the extent of 60 to 80% in the normal yield. We have accepted this report Ex.P-3 as it is, only on the ground that, the loss to the extent of 60 to 80% sustained by those farmers in normal yield could be due to shortage of power supply through that farmer for to feed the required quantity of water to crop, there are no other reasons to say that crop might be failed due to shortage of water in the river or in their wells. All the above said farmers are telling that, they are dragging water from Krishna River, hence there was no reason for to reject the evidences of the complainant that, the failure of crop was due to non supply proper voltage through that transformer, it is very much as the said transformer fixed for supply of power was of low capacity for to distribute the required unit of power to each farmers. Further it is very much clear that, the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 or their subordinates not took sincere steps to avoid loss by these farmers in the year 2008 by providing required quantity of voltage to transformer, in view of such circumstances, we are of the view that, there are no grounds out coming to reject the said evidences of PW-1 & PW-2 that all the farmers noted above have sustained loss of groundnut crop in the year 2008 to the extent of 60 to 80% to the normal yield. Hence it is proved fact that, opposites have shown their negligence in rectifying their mistakes by disconnecting the power supply of unauthorized users, hence they found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
24. As regards to the loss of crop of above (29) complainants is concerned, all of them have relied on document Ex.P-3, this report is of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Lingasugur, who assessed the loss of crop of them to the extent of 60 to 80%. Surprisingly these complainants have not produced any documents or evidences to show the normal yield of groundnut crop in the year 2008, they have also not produced any single paper to show the market rate per quintal of groundnut in the year 2008. Simply they have shown in their complaint that each of have sustained such and such amount of loss. This contention cannot be accepted without any documentary evidences, however it is a proved fact that, the above said complainants have sustained loss in the yield of groundnut crop in the year 2008 due to negligence of these opposites. Under such circumstances, we have taken note of the cost of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, manual labor for cultivation and others miscellaneous expenses and we are of the view that, it is proper and reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per acre as loss sustained by those (29) farmers-complainants as noted in this complaint.
25. Keeping in view of the fact that, complainant No-2 Basappa S/o. Mallappa is having 4 acres of land in which he cultivated groundnut crop, as such he is entitled to get Rs. 5000/- per acre towards loss sustained by him and totally he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20,000/- from opposites 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Similarly complainant No-9 Manappa S/o. Somappa has cultivated groundnut crop in 2 acres, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-18 Holeppa S/o. Basappa has cultivated groundnut crop in 3 acres 20 guntas so he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 17,500/-, complainant No-23 Adappa S/o. Somappa has cultivated groundnut crop to the extent of 2 acres, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-32 Bhimangouda S/o. Hanumangouda has cultivated groundnut crop in his 4 acres of land as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-33 Durgappa S/o. Hanumappa has cultivated groundnut crop in the year 2008 in his land to the extent of 2 acres 16 guntas, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 12,500/-, complainant No-44 Yellappa S/o. Bhimappa has cultivated groundnut crop to the extent of 7 acres, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 35,000/-, complainant No-38 Hanumappa S/o. Basappa has cultivated in 2 acres of land, hence he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10,000/-, compainant No-17 Basappa S/o. Hanumappa has cultivated in 3 acres 19 guntas, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 17,000/-, complainant No-47 Sanjeevappa S/o. Basappa has cultivated in 6 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 30,000/-.
26. In the similar way complainant No-3 Pakeerappa S/o. Bheemappa Vokrani has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-4 Hanumappa S/o. Bhimappa has cultivated in 3 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 15,000/-, complainant No-5 Holeppa S/o. Hanumangouda has cultivated in 2 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-6 Hulagappa S/o. Kalappa has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-7 Basappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.M. has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-14 Bhimappa S/o. Basappa has cultivated in 1 acre 20 guntas, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 7500/- complainant No-15 Semappa S/o. Basappa has cultivated in 2 acres of his land, as such he entitled to get loss of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-16 Sangappa S/o. Balappa has cultivated in 5 acres 4 guntas, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 26,000/-, complainant No-19 Kanakappa S/o. Basappa.H. has cultivated in 2 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-20 Chandappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.D. has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No-21 Sanjeevappa S/o. Hanumappa has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No-22 Durgappa S/o. Somappa has cultivated in 2 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-34 Amarappa S/o. Bheemappa has cultivated in 2 acres 10 guntas, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 12000/-, complainant No-36 Chandamma W/o. Bhimangouda has cultivated in 7 acres, as such she is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 35,000/-, complainant No-37 Amarappa S/o. Malappa has cultivated in 4 acres of land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No.39 Amarappa S/o. Basappa has cultivated in 2 acres of his land, as such he is entitled to get total loss of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-43 Ambamma W/o. Yellappa cultivated 4 acres as such she is entitled to get Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-45 Sannabasappa S/o. Hanumappa cultivated 3 acres as such he is entitled to get Rs. 15,000/-. Similarly complainant No-42 Basappa S/o. Hanumappa cultivated land to the extent of 4 acres as such he is entitled to get Rs 20,000/-.
27. In addition to the amount mentioned before their names, the above said complainants are entitled to get additional amount of Rs. 3000/- each from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally towards deficiency in service.
28. Apart from it, the above said each complainant are entitled to get the total amount as noted above with future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
29. As regards to cost is concerned, single complaint filed by all of them, keeping in view of this fact, a total amount of Rs. 5000/- is award towards cost of this complaint which is distributable among all the above complainants equally to meet out the expenses of this litigation.
30. This complaint filed by the complainant No-1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 to 31, 35, 40, 41, 46 & 48 totally is dismissed, accordingly we answered this point.
POINT NO.3:-
31. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the following persons is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant No-2 Basappa S/o. Mallappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-9 Manappa S/o. Somappa, is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-18 Holeppa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 17,500/-, complainant No-23 Adappa S/o. Somappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-32 Bhimangouda S/o. Hanumangouda is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-33 Durgappa S/o. Hanumappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 12,500/-, complainant No-44 Yellappa S/o. Bhimappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 35,000/-, complainant No-38 Hanumappa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10,000/-, compainant No-17 Basappa S/o. Hanumappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 17,000/-, complainant No-47 Sanjeevappa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 30,000/- complainant No-3 Pakirappa S/o. Bheemappa Vokrani is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-4 Hanumappa S/o. Bhimappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 15,000/-, complainant No-5 Holeppa S/o. Hanumangouda is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10,000/-, complainant No-6 Hulagappa S/o. Kalappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-7 Basappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.M. is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-14 Bhimappa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 7500/- complainant No-15 Semappa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get amount of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-16 Sangappa S/o. Balappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 26,000/-, complainant No-19 Kanakappa S/o. Basappa.H. is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-20 Chandappa S/o. Sanjeevappa.D. is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No-21 Sanjeevappa S/o. Hanumappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No-22 Durgappa S/o. Somappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-34 Amarappa S/o. Bheemappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 12000/-, complainant No-36 Chandamma W/o. Bhimangouda is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 35,000/-, complainant No-37 Amarappa S/o. Malappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20000/-, complainant No.39 Amarappa S/o. Basappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 10000/-, complainant No-43 Ambamma W/o. Yellappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 20,000/-, complainant No-45 Sannabasappa S/o. Hanumappa is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
Each complainant as noted above is entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service of opposite.
A total cost of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded which is to be distributed among the complainants equally.
Each complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the respective amount from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
This complaint filed by the complainant No-1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25, 26 to 31, 35, 40, 41, 46 & 48 totally is dismissed
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is granted one month time to make the entire payment from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties/Advocates accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 18-07-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
