Karnataka

Bidar

CC/32/2013

Mahindra Kumar S/o Maniprasad Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                          C.C.No. 32/2013

 

                                                                                             Date of filing : 20/07/2013

 

                                                                                          Date of disposal : 26/08/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:        Mahindra Kumar S/o Manikprasad Tiwari

                                            Age:68 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                           R/o Village Ambesangvi

        Tq: Bhalki, District: Bidar.

              

 

 

                                

 (By Sri P.M.Deshpande., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-     1.   The Executive Engineer,

      GESCOM,  Bidar-585401.

 

2.    The Asst. Executive Engineer,

       GESCOM,  Bhalki-585328                                                        

 (  R1.By R.K.Ganure. Advocate and R2. Exparte.)                               

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              The complainant, a senior citizen has instituted the complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 against the opponents alleging deficiency of service, as described hereunder:

 

2.          That, he is a resident of village- Ambesangvi, Tq. Aurad,  Dist. Bidar and owns agricultural land in Sy.No.109 of the same village.  In the agriculture operation, he was being supported by his son Ravindra Kumar, due to his old age.  The complainant further submits that, he had on open well in his land and to augment agriculture, his only profession, had intended to install an I.P. set in the open well.  The neighbouring parcel of land, belonging to some other person had electrical connection and a Transformer installed, wherefore, he approached the opponent for installation of more poles to draw electrical connection to his land, proximate to the well.  The opponents having informed him vide a letter date: 07.06.2006, he had deposited a sum of Rs.2160/- + Rs.1200/- + Rs.300/- + 10,000/- totally Rs.13,490/- vide R.R.NO. 48514 on 30.06.2006, and apart from that, he had remitted a sum of Rs.3310/- for which no receipt was granted by the opponents.

3.   The complainant further goes to allege that, till date the opponents had never installed any pole in his land despite a representation submitted Date: 02.04.2012.  He had submitted a further representation to the Dy.Commissioner, Bidar, on 23.04.2012, which remained unheeded.  The complainant further claims, in initio, the opponents had orally revealed to him that, it would take 1 to 2 years to install pole is his land due to non-availability of materials.  Till 2012, when no pole was erected, he enquired through other sources and could come to know, in spite of availability of materials, the opponents have neglected to provide the electrical pole to his land with ulterior motives.  On 27.05.2013, he got issued a legal notice to the opponents, which met with a stoic silence and therefore, he is before this forum, seeking a direction to install a pole to draw power line to his land and a compensation o Rs.90,000/-.

 

4.           Vis-a Vis  the complaint, on court notice the opponents have put up appearance through counsel of their choice and have filed versions claiming as follows:-

  a.   That, the complainant is time barred..

  b.   That, the complainant was drawing power illegally.

  c.   That, there was a provision for regularising illegal connections.

d.  That, is pursuance of the scheme, the complainant was called upon to
      deposit charges and he had done so on 07.06.2006 by depositing  the
       amount levied and the illegal connection was regularised.

e.  That a transformer has been erected in the land of one Kashinath. 

f. That, the distance between the Trans-former and the I.P. Set of the   
      complainant is 15mtrs.

g.   That, service connections can be arranged up to a distance of 30 Mtrs.
       as per the rules and regulations of the GESCOM.

 h. That, the claim of the complainant to have remitted an extra payment of
      Rs. 3310/- is false.

 i. That, the claim of the complainant stating to have approached the
       opponents and the later revealing that it would take one to two years to
       install a pole is false.

  j.  That, the complainant has not lodged any claim before the GESCOM
        during the year 2006.

  k. That, the complainant not having made any claim during the years
        2006-2008, the complaint is barred by time.

  l.  That, the complaint claiming Rs.90,000/- as compensation is wholly
        unjustified.

 

5.      At the instances of the opponents, our learned predecessors had appointed a court Commissioner, vide order Date. 15.03.2014 and one D.M.Swamy, Advocate, being appointed as such had filed his reports to the court a propos memo of instructions on 21.06.2014.  In the said report, he has informed as follows:-

 

6.   Herein, the commissioner’s report is extracted in detail.

1.     The distance between electric Trans former and the complainant well
          is 60 feet.

2.     There is a 4(Four) poles from Transformer to complainant land and
          one T.C. in the land of Kashinath.

3.     The distance between the well and Transformer is 60 feet.

4.      The distance between the Transformer and IP set is 50 feet.

5.      There are no any IP Set connections in the surrounding lands.

6.      Only one IP Set connection in the land of complaint.

7.     There is a two pole Transformer with LT Line connection, and power
          Supply given to complainant IP Set,

 

 

7.        The commissioner was subjected to cross examination on 20.11.2015 on the prayer of the complainant and the contents of the cross examinations are as follows:-

        I don’t remember the date of spot inspection in the afore mentioned case.  It is true that, as per the courts’ order, I have visited the land of the complainant, by name Mahendrakummar.  I state that only one I.P. Set was installed in the land of Mahendrakumar at the eastern flank of the land.  It is true that, the Transformer was not located in the land of the complainant, but in the land of some other person. The said land locating the transformer should be of one Sri Kashinath.  There was a pole near the well of the complainant but I cannot say what was the distance of the pole from the well.

       It is not true that, I have prepared a false report.

                                                                                     

8.        We are dismayed that, the report and cross examination of the court commissioner are at a variance and quite mind bungling and pretty in consistent and we conclude his report unreliable.  Thereby, we have to rely on the color  photos submitted by the complainant is the case in ascertaining the exact position of the electrical pole, fixed away from the complainants land.

9.      Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following points a rise      for our consideration,

             a. Is the complaint time barred as claimed by the opponents?

               b. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of
                  service?

              c. What reliefs?

Our answers to the points stated above are:-

1. In the negative
2. In the affirmative.
3. As per final orders.        

 

 

 

REASONS.

 

 Point (a).      The opponents are vociferous that, the complainant had remitted the assessed charges in 2006, power supply to his I.P. set was regularised during the very same year and the complaint should have been filed within two years.  We see from the Ex.P1 and P2 that, as per the demand notice an amount of Rs.13,690-00 was demanded and collected on 07.06.2006 by the opponents and the power supply was regularised.  After that, the complainant has been approaching the authorities, demanding erection of a pole proximate to his I.P. Set Dt. 02.042012 (Ex.P3), 29.01.2010 (ExP4), 3.04.2012 (Ex.P5).  The representations not having acted upon, he got issued a legal notice (ExP8) on 25.05.2013, which also met with a stoic silence, wherefore he has approached this forum on 29.11.2014.  Further, when a wrong has been perpetrated upon a party and not remedified even after demand, the cause of action continues de-die-in –Diem as per section 22 of the Limitation Act and therefore, for all practical purposes, the complaint is filed within time.  Therefore we answer the point in negative.

 

Point (b):   The complainant has been persistently clamouring about installation of a pole proximate to his I.P. Set, fixed to the open well.               The opponents claim that, the distance between the I.P. Set and the transformer in the land of one Sri. Kashinath is hardly 15mtrs and as per the procedures, the distance between two poles should be 30mtrs and hence they are not bound to install a pole near the I.P. Set of the complainant.  Albeit the commissioner had assessed the distance between the I.P. Set of complainant as 50 feet, The color photos of the T.C. reveals its’ position.  It is perceived that, the transformer is lodged in between two poles in the land of Kashinath would be at a height of 10 to 15 feet from the ground.  Drawing a power supply line to the I.P. Set of the complainant at a distance of 50 feet either from the top of the pole or transformer would be obviously in a declined manner, hazardous to all and sundry.  Parameters of fixation of poles at distance of 30mtrs, as claimed by the opponents may be usual in continuous power supply lines, but here in, the state of affairs is quite peculiar.  We therefore, find force in the averments of the complainant, answer the point (b) in affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDERS

 

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opponents are directed to erect a pole proximate to the I.P. Set of the complainant near his well and provide power to the I.P. Set.
3. The opponents have already collected supervision charges of Rs.10,000/- which is quite exorbitant and irrational and hence no further demand should be made to the complainant
4. The compensation claim of Rs.90,000/- being unfounded is declined.
5. There would be no order as to compensation or costs owing to the peculiar circumstances of the case.

   

           Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

                Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

  Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.                                                           

 

 

 

 

      

 

  

 

Documents relied upon by the parties, complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Demand notice to complainant date.07.06.2006. 
2. Ex.P.2- Four receipts of opponents.
3. Ex.P.3- Representation to opponents date. 02.04.2012.
4. Ex.P.4-Representation of complainant to the Dy. Commissioner,                     Bidar Dist. Date. 29.01.2010.
5. Ex.P.5-Representation of the complainant to opponents date. 03.04.2012.
6. Ex.P.6- Demand notice of opponents (akin to Ex.P1)
7. Ex.P.7- R.T.C. extract for the land of the complainant. 
8. Ex.P.8-Office copy of legal notice together with three courier receipts date. 25.05.2013.
9. Ex.P.9- Reply by the Electrical Inspoctarte date.12.06.2013.
10. Ex.P.10.Color photographs of the T.C and the well.

 

Documents produced by the Opponent

                       Nil

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.