Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/59/2018

R.Kariyanna Bin Ranganna - Complainant(s)

Versus

SIRA BESCOM SECTION OFFICERS - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Aug 2020

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 10-07-2018

                                                      Disposed on: 07-08-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

 

CC.No.59/2018

 

DATED THIS THE 07^th DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Sri.R.Kariyanna

S/o. Ranganna,

Aged 70 years

R/at Kempanahalli

Gollarahatti, Ratnasandra

Post, Kasaba Hobli,

Sira taluk, Tumakuru district

 

(By Sri.T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

 

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Section Officer,

BESCOM, Sira Branch,

Jyothi Nagar, Pattanayakanahalli Road,

Sira Town, Sira Taluk,

Tumakuru District

2. The Section Officer,

BESCOM, Madhugiri Branch, Sira Road,

Madhugiri Station,

Madhugiri Taluk,

Tumakuru District

 

(OP No.1 –by D.S.Keshava, Advocate)

(OP No.2-Exparte)

      

ORDER

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint has filed by Sri.R.Kariyanna S/o Ranganna, aged 70 years resident of Kempanahalli Gollarahatti, Ratnasandra post, Kasaba hobli, Sira taluk, Tumakuru district to direct the Opposite parties-BESCOM, Sira and Madhugiri (hereinafter called as OPs) to pay Rs.10,00,000=00 as compensation for loss of crop in Sy.No.45/2 of Ratnasandra village, mental agony and low voltage to lift water from the Pump set. Further the complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000=00 with interest for drop in power supply to Pump set fixed in Sy.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village. The complainant has asked for award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00 for cutting tamarind tree situated in his land along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000=00 and issue direction to the OPs to fix the high voltage transformer for supply of electricity to the Pump set fixed in Sy.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village under Ganga Kalyana Scheme.   

 

          2. The OP No.1 appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint with regard to low voltage to the transformers fixed near the land of complainant and loss of crop as such the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000=00 and Rs.5,00,000=00 respectively.  It is the case of OP that it had installed 25 KV TC to supply electricity to the Pump set fixed in the Sy.No.45/2 of Ratnasandra village, Sira taluk and the complainant had utilized the power supply for more than ten years without any objections. At no point of time power drop to the bore well connection of complainant and transformer had capacity to full voltage to his bore well.  It is further case of OP that the complainant had dug a bore well under Gaga Kalyana Scheme in the year 2011-12 in his land Sy.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village and estimate was done by the OP to install the TC and four poles. The OP instead of installing 25 KV had installed 63 KV TC and three poles. The power connection to the complainant’s land is starting point such being the case the complainant is having good power supply. The complainant is belonging to minority community as such he had been creating trouble and trying to demand things which are not in the society at large. The farmers in and around the complainant’s land are also in need of power supply. The OP to give power supply to other farmers had installed 63 KV TC instead of 25 KV transformer so that all the farmers would be benefited. The complainant has filed false complaint without any cause of action and to harass the OP and also to get monetary benefits from this Forum.  On the above grounds, the OP No.1 asked to dismiss the complaint.

          3. The OP No.2 despite the service of notice was proceeded exparte.

 

          4. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced four documents in support of his case. On behalf of OP No.1-Section Officer Sri.T.Nagaraju S/o. Thippanna filed his affidavit evidence and produced list with three documents.

 

          5. We have heard the oral arguments in addition to written brief submitted by the complainant and OP No.1 and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?  

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the partly affirmative  

Point No.2: In the partly affirmative

for the below

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to low voltage the complainant could not lift the water from his bore well as a result he has sustained loss. OP No.1 contention is that though there was no power drop out to lift the water from the bore well the complainant in order to harass the OP and society at large is in the habit of filing false complaints and making false representations to other authority. The complainant has asked relief for two survey numbers.  The first is in respect of Sy.No.45/2 and another Sy.No.35/1.

 

8. The complainant case is that in the year 1989-1990 he dug the open well in Sy.No.45/2 of Ratnasandra village and he was lifting the water along with other owners from the said well for that the OP has supplied electricity by fixing the fifteen poles. During the year 1995-96 due to underground water has gone down in the well the complainant has got dug 120 feet depth bore well in the said open well and got two inch water. The complainant has got power connection to five additional HP motor pumps set to lift the water from bore well to open well. The complainant was getting water in rainy season and he was not getting the water from bore well in summer season. The complainant has sustained loss due to low voltage as such he could not rise the crop in Sy.No.45/2 and also spent Rs.1,00,000=00 for repair of pump set due to low voltage. It is further case of complainant that he had filed CC.No.92/1999 on the file of this Commission (then the District Forum) seeking compensation of Rs.15,000=00 per year, Rs.2,00,000=00 compensation, new TC along with electrical line to his pump set. The OP had assured to erect the new TC along with line, payment of Rs.2,00,000=00 as compensation and also job to his son as such he withdrew the complaint No.92/1999.

 

          9. The complainant has not produced certified copy of the complaint in CC.No.92/1999 and it order sheet to know the reasons of withdrawal. The complainant has not produced even RTC of Sy.No.45/2 to know the different crops raised in the said land from the year 1995 till this day. Secondly, the prayer in respect of land Sy.No.45/2 to award compensation etc is barred by time since the cause of action has arose in the year 1999 and this complaint has been filed in the year 2018. The complainant has not produced any letter of assurance given by the OP to withdraw CC.No.92/1999. The complainant has asked for refund of Rs.1,496=00 which include interest was deposited towards connection of additional five HP motor pump set to the Bore well dug in the open well during the year 1995-1996. The complainant has produced letter dated 20-5-2019 addressed to him by the OP in which it is stated that Rs.1,496=00 has been adjusted towards arrears of electricity bill on 26-2-1996. Therefore, the claim of complainant for Rs.1,496=00 though barred by time however the OP in the year 1996 itself adjusted the said amount towards arrears of RR No.SIP3740. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any relief in respect of Sy.No.45/2 of Ratnasandra village.

 

          10. The OP has admitted that the complainant has dug a new bore well in Sy.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village under the scheme of Ganga Kalyana in the year 2012. The OP further admitted that though the complainant has asked for installation of 25 KV transformer along with four poles but this OP has supplied electricity to the pump set of Sy.No.35/1 by installing 63 KV transformer by erecting three electricity poles. It is the case of complainant that though the OP has installed 63 KV transformer but there is power drop as such he is not getting water from the bore well. The OP has produced letter dated 17-4-2012 addressed to the complainant for supply of electricity to the land Sy.No.35/1 wherein bore well has dug under the Ganga Kalyana Scheme. On the requisition submitted by the complainant the OP No.1 has submitted letter dated 5-1-2017 to the OP No.2 for supply of additional TC of 25 KV as there is over loaded 63 KV Kempanahalli, Gollarahatti. It is clearly stated in the said letter by OP No.1 that the additional 25 KV TC is required for free supply of electricity to the land of complainant. The OP No.2 has prepared the budget for the year 2016-2017 for providing 25 KV DTC to the existing overloaded 63 KV at Girinathanahalli and others. The documents produced by the OP No.1 dated 5-1-2017 show that there is low voltage power supply to the pump set of complainant situated at SY.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village.

 

11. The OP No.1 in the written arguments contended that in the year 2018 it has got installed another new TC on the demand of complainant which is over and above the existing TC. The OP No.1 in the written version and affidavit evidence not mentioned with regard to installing additional TC in the year 2018.  On the contrary the OP No.1 in the written arguments submitted on 2-7-2019 has taken contention that it has installed another new TC in the year 2018 on the demand of complainant. The said argument is not supported by any document for installing additional TC by OP.  In case the OP No.1 has installed new additional TC the same should have mentioned in the written version filed on 31-10-2018 and affidavit evidence of OP No.1 dated 11-3-2019. The OP No.1 though admitted in two letters dated 5-1-2017 with regard to requirement of additional TC to the complainant’s land but even after filing the complaint has failed to provide additional TC. The documents of OP No.1 itself prove that there is low voltage in the existing transformer of 63 KV to lift the water from pump set situated in St.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village. The complainant has not produced any material to show that he has sustained to the loss of extent of Rs.5,00,000=00 for low voltage. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation for ill-health of his son and his old aged diseases. The complainant has not produced any documents to show that the OP has cut the tamarind tree situated in his land as such he is not entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000=00. The complainant is entitled only litigation cost of Rs.2,000=00 asked in the complaint. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by Sri.R.Kariyanna S/o. Ranganna is partly allowed directing the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 shall install additional 25 KVA transformer to the over and above existing 63 KVA TC to lift water from Bore well situated in Sy.No.35/1 of Ratnasandra village. The Opposite party N.1 and 2 shall install the additional TC within 60 days from the date of this order otherwise, they are liable to pay to penalty of Rs.100=00 per day from the date of default till its compliance.

 

It is further ordered that the Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant within 60 days otherwise, it carries interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till payment.  

 

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 07^th day of August, 2020).

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT