State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer, Elec And Another vs Naba Kishore Badapanda And Others on 5 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO.539 OF 2001
From an order dated 08.08.2001
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Keonjhar in C.D. Case
No.76 of 1999
1. Executive
Engineer, Elec.,
Keonjhar
Elec. Division,
At/P.O/Dist-
Keonjhar.
2. Sub-Divisional
Officer, Elec.,
Elec.
Sub-Division, Champua,
District-
Keonjhar.
Appellants
-Versus-
1. Naba
Kishore Badapanda,
Son
of Late Gour Ch. Badapanda,
Village/P.O-
Badanai, Via- Champua,
District-
Keonjhar.
2. District
Manager,
Orissa
Agro Industries, Keonjhar.
3. District
Agriculture Officer,
At/P.O-
Champua, District- Keonjhar.
Respondents
For the Appellants :
M/s. B.K. Nayak & Assoc.
For the Respondent no.1: M/s. B. Biswal & Assoc.
P
R E S E N T :
THE
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT
A
N D
SHRI
SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER
O R D E R
DATE:-
05TH DECEMBER, 2008.
We have heard Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, i.e., Executive Engineer, Electrical, Keonjhar Elec. Division and Sub-Divisional Officer, Electrical, Elec. Sub-Division, Champua, District Keonjhar and Mr. D.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
2. This appeal is preferred by the above mentioned appellants, who were opposite party nos.2 and 3 before the District Forum, Keonjhar in C.D. Case No.76 of 1999 filed by respondent no.1 alleging deficiency in service on the part of these two opposite parties as well as opposite party nos.1 and 4, who are the District Manager, Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Limited and District Agriculture Officer, Champua. The District Forum finding these opposite party nos.2 and 3 deficient in providing power connection to the Lift Irrigation point of the complainant issued direction to supply power to the applied place of the complainant without further demand of any amount and pay a consolidated amount of rupees 10,000/- for the financial loss and cost of litigation within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.
3. The brief fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant in order to earn his livelihood through agriculture applied to the District Agriculture Officer, Champua (opposite party no.4) for a lift irrigation point at his village Badnai to irrigate his five acres of land and became a member of Krushi Sahayaka Kendra (in short K.S.K).
The opposite party no.4 sponsored his application in the year 1997 to opposite party no.1 and after verification, opposite party no.1 suggested the complainant to have a bore-well in his land and for that purpose the complainant on 17.06.1997 deposited a sum of rupees 10,000/- and on 15.04.1999 an amount of rupees 7,000/- as advance and after deposit of the amount, opposite party no.1 dug the bore-well on 19.06.1997 and intimated the opposite party no.2 to give power connection to the said bore-well, as a motor of 1.5 H.P. was to be installed in the lift irrigation point. Accordingly, the opposite party no.3 prepared the estimate and received the security deposit and service connection charges of rupees 1,090/- on 06.11.1999.
4. The allegation against the opposite party nos.2 and 3, who are the appellants before us, is that in spite of said deposit no power connection was given to the lift irrigation point of the complainant and the entire investment of the complainant became useless. The appellants, who were opposite party nos.2 and 3 before the District Forum, were noticed, but none appeared for them nor they themselves appeared before the Forum below and ultimately they were found liable for deficiency in service and subjected to the direction as stated above.
5. The learned counsel Mr. B.K. Nayak appearing for the appellants submits that the complainant submitted an application for supply of power to his private lift irrigation point. Permission was granted by the S.D.O., Electrical, Champua on 30.11.1998 for power supply to 1.5 H.P. motor for irrigation purpose and on the basis of such permission, estimate was made for drawing the supply line and for giving power supply to the lift irrigation point. The total estimated amount was rupees 29,280/- with the scope to work for drawing LT line of .45 K.Ms. The said estimate was communicated to the complainant on 31.03.1999 to make deposit of the entire amount. The complainant did not deposit the said amount, but deposited a sum of rupees 1,090/- towards security deposit and service connection. The complainant did not deposit the estimated amount for drawing the LT line and did not execute any agreement for giving power supply to his lift irrigation point and for such non-deposit of the estimated amount and non-execution of the agreement, it was not possible to undertake the work giving power supply to his lift irrigation point. It was submitted by Mr. Nayak that an Advocates notice dated 12.11.1999 was received by the appellants, wherein it was mentioned that the complainant had deposited the security amount and the service connection charges since long and power supply was not given. He also submitted that there is also mention that under the SPA scheme, the complainant had already dug a bore-well. On receipt of the Advocates notice, reply was given by the appellant no.1 on 27.11.1999 informing the advocate of the complainant that due to non-deposit of the estimated amount and non-execution of the agreement, the work could not be undertaken for giving power supply and it was intimated to the advocate of the complainant to inform the complainant to deposit the estimated amount and to execute necessary agreement to enable the appellants to give power supply to his lift irrigation point. He further argued that before 01.04.1996, the Management of the O.S.E.B. was getting subsidy of rupees 20,000/- from the Government for giving power supply to the private lift irrigation points, but with effect from 01.04.1996 the said subsidy was withdrawn and, accordingly, the field officers of the GRIDCO were intimated that on receipt of the full cost power supply was to be effected.
He submitted that since 01.04.1996 the subsidy which was being extended by the Government for giving power supply to the private lift irrigation points was withdrawn and as such the complainant was required to deposit the estimated cost for drawing line to his field which was assessed at rupees 29,280/- and since he did not deposit the same, power supply could not be resumed.
6. We have heard Mr. D.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the complainant / respondent no.1 and perused the documents, i.e., letter of the year 1996 to the Executive Engineers regarding withdrawal of the subsidy of rupees 20,000/- in respect of private lift irrigation points. We have also perused the reply of the appellant no.1 / opposite party no.2 to the advocate of the complainant / respondent no.1 requesting to intimate the complainant to deposit necessary estimated amount and execute agreement in the prescribed proforma to avail power supply.
7. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the complainant / respondent no.1 submits that the complainant had invested huge money by digging of bore-well and purchasing the electric pump of 1.5 H.P. which he had installed and due to non-supply of power by the appellants, the entire investment did not yield any result.
8. It is true that under the scheme, the complainant had expected subsidy in all respects and for drawing power line there was also subsidy of rupees 20,000/-, as we find from the letter filed by the learned counsel Mr. Nayak for the appellants. Since the subsidy was withdrawn in respect of the private lift irrigation points, the appellant no.1 had intimated to the complainant through his advocate for deposit of the estimated cost for drawing line and entering into agreement, but that was not done nor any response to that effect was made and the appellants are helpless in the matter and could not draw the line for supply of power to the lift irrigation point.
9. Be that as it may, since the complainant had deposited rupees 1,090/-, which is not disputed and still lying with the appellant no.1 the Executive Engineer, while finding the appellants not liable of any sort of deficiency in providing service on their part, we direct the appellant no.1 the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Keonjhar to return the said deposited amount of the complainant with 10% interest thereon from the date of receipt till the date of payment. The payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order. We, however, set-aside the order of the District Forum, Keonjhar with respect to the amount of compensation and cost awarded by the District Forum, as we have already recorded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants / opposite party nos.2 and
3.
10. With the above observation and direction, this appeal is partly allowed.