State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Junior Engineer (Ele) vs Kamalamma on 5 September, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1261/2022 ( Date of Filing : 27 Jun 2022 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 21/04/2021 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/72/2018 of District Tumkur) 1. Junior Engineer (Ele) Kadaba Branch, Kadaba-572219, Nitturu Sub-Division, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom), Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Nitturu Sub-Division, Nittur-572223, Bangalore Electricity Supply, Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District 3. The Executive Engineer (Ele) O & M Division Bangalore Electricity Supply, Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District 4. Superintendent Engineer (Ele) Tumkuru Circle, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Kothithopu Road, Tumkuru-572101 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Kamalamma C/o Rajanna, Gangapattanna Village, Badagere Post, Gubbi Taluk-572216, Tumkuru District. 2. Rajanna S/o Late Kalaiah G.P.A. Holder Gangapattana Village, Badagere Post, Gubbi Taluk-572216. Tumkuru District ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 05 Sep 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing: 27.06.2022 Date of Disposal: 05.09.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 05th Day of SEPTEMBER 2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT Mr K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO.1261/2022 Junior Engineer (Ele) Kadaba Branch, Kadaba-572219, Nitturu Sub-Division, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (BESCOM), Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Nitturu Sub-Division, Nittur-572223, Bangalore Electricity Supply, Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District The Executive Engineer (Ele) O & M Division, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Gubbi Taluk, Tumkuru District Superintendent Engineer (Ele), Tumkuru Circle, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (BESCOM) Kothithopu Road, Tumkuru-572101........ Appellants (By Mr.H.V.Devaraju, Adv.) -Versus- Kamalamma C/O Rajanna, Gangapattanna Village, Badagere Post, Gubbi Taluk-572216, Tumkuru District. Rajanna S/O Late Kalaiah G.P.A. Holder Gangapattana Village, Badagere Post, Gubbi Taluk-572216. Tumkuru District........ Respondents (By Mr.S. Krishna Kishore, Adv.) O R D E R
BY HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT This Appeal filed by OPs under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by an order dated 21.04.2021, passed in CC/72/2018 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumakuru herein after referred as District Forum and the parties arrayed as in the consumer complaint) The Brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant owns 04 acres of land at Sreegangapattanna Gubbi Taluk, Tumakuru District in which the complainant has grown coconut and areca nut crop. In the month of April 2015, complainant submitted an application to OP1 for connection of electricity for 2HP areca nut de-husking machine under Neeranthara Jyothi Scheme. The OP1 submitted estimation for 2KV electricity to OP2 on depositing necessary charges. The OPs have given work order to one Nanjegowda contractor to execute the work. When the contractor has unloaded materials near the work place for execution of the work then OP1 and OP2 has stopped the execution of work as the neighbours have obstructed to carry out the work. The OPs despite the repeated oral request and correspondence made with them and higher authorities did not give electricity connection to complainant's areca nut de-husking machine. Hence professed Consumer Complaint before the Commission below on 03.08.2018 seeking direction to OPs to reimburse the loss sustained by the complainant for not supply of 2KV Neeranthara Jyothi electric connection to the areca nut de-husking machine due to deficiency in service of the OPs. Further direct OPs to pay compensation for physical torture of the complainant continuously for 03 years. The OPs be directed to pay loss in sale of areca nut de-husking machine and litigation and other expenses to the tune of Rs.10 Lakhs.
Upon service of notice OPs appeared through learned counsel and contested the matter contending that to execute the work the contractor and Bescom staff went to the work spot with line materials on 17.11.2015 and when they start to work the neighbouring land owners and public of the local residents did not allow to carry out the work and they submitted a joint representation to stop the work. That one Nataraj and few residents of Gangapattana village has given a representation to OPs since the proposed new line is passing through their lands and sites and also objected to draw the line through the land survey No.104, 103/1c and 103/2 of Gangapattana. The contractor has returned back the materials when there was strong protest by the neighbours of complainant. That on 08.12.2015 OP3 has inspected the work spot and found a temporary shed but not areca nut machine installed in the shed by the complainant. At the time of spot inspection by OP3 the public again have protested to draw new line work which has to be erected by the OPs. Then the OPs have advised the complainant to obtain consent letter from the villagers and her neighbouring land owners. The OP3 has advised the complainant's to install areca nut de-husking machine and inform the OPs so that the OPs can arrange for power supply nearby transformer. The complainant till today has not replied to the requisition sent by the OPs. The OPs have agreed to give power connection to the complainant's areca nut machine from nearby transformer which is just 10 meters from the temporary shed constructed by the complainant. The OPs have never refused to give power connection to the areca nut machine of the complainant. The complainant is repeatedly demanded power connection from Neeranthara Jyothi feeder where the consent of private land owners is required. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
The Commission below after holding enquiry observed that complainant has not produced document to show that she has purchased areca nut de-husking machine before supply of electricity and it was sold for lower price. Absolutely no document to show that the complainant had purchased machine before power connection and sold it after three years. The complainant is not entitled for compensation since she has suppressed the fact of filing Writ Petitions and order passed thereon on 08.01.2018 eight months prior to filing the complaint. In view of the order passed in WPs and Writ Appeal the complainant is not entitled for compensation or litigation cost. Thereby allowed the complaint in part and directed OP1 to 4 to give power connection to the areca nut de-husking machine to be installed by the complainant from a transformer which is nearby her house/land under Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder (Scheme) within 45 days from the date of order. Further directs OPs shall adjust the amount if paid by the complainant earlier and if any amount payable by the complainant to give power connection as per her letter dated 18.01.2021 intimate to her for payment. In case excess amount paid by the complainant earlier it shall be refunded with interest at the rate of 06% p.a. from the date of payment till its repayment by OPs. In case the OPs fail to comply with the order after necessary charges paid by the complainant within 45 days, the OPs shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per till its compliance.
It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OPs contending that the Commission below failed to notice that the applicant shall comply the requirements before the work of laying the service line is taken up as provided under Clause 4.03 (ii) of Supply Conditions to furnish the consent of the owner of the property, in order to draw the service line, however, the complainant failed to furnish Consent Letter, even though there was an obstructions from the Land Owners at the time of execution of the work. Furthermore, In WP No.39351-39352/2016 which came to be disposed on 08.01.2018 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka directed complainant either to obtain the suitable consent from the neighbouring property owners, who are likely to be effected by the erection of power supply line or the Transformer or to give own consent for setting up the Transformer in front of her own house and same has been challenged by the complainant by filing Writ Appeal in W.A. No.719/2018, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka confirmed the Orders passed in Writ Petitions and further directed OP3 to consider the letter dated 18.01.2021 and provide Electricity connection in terms of order of learned single judge vide order dated 08.02.2021 and therefore, the Commission below ought to have been rejected the complaint considering the fact that the Division Bench passed an order dated 08.02.2021. It is submitted that OPs have taken steps to comply the order of the District Commission for drawing the service line from the existing Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder to the shed of the complainant as shown in the sketch and however, the neighbouring land owners have severally obstructed and there was law and order problem and even police officers are not able to give protection and therefore, the OPs serviced the Installation of the complainant areca-nut de-husking machine on the existing transformer in front of the complainant house vide installation bearing RR No.NSP1148 and even despite servicing the installation in front of the house of the complainant vide Installation bearing RR No.NSP1148 under LT5 (b) Tariff on 17.02.2022 and even then the complainants have been prosecuting the EA/44/2021 on the ground that complainants required power supply from Neeranthara Jyothi Scheme. Thus sought for setting aside the impugned order.
Complainants/respondents herein this appeal appeared through learned counsel and filed objections contending that the appellants along with the appeal memorandum have produced some photographs to show that electric meter board and electric connection had been provided by them by fixing the same to a pole of their shed in their land in front of their house at Page No.42 to 45 and wrote as 'NSP 1148', under Rural Feeder Scheme. That connection was provided from 25KV Transformer which already exists in front of their house and is not the connection under Neerantharajyothi Feeder Scheme given on 17.02.2022 and the officers of the Bescom have taken photographs by standing near the pole of their shed. It is submitted that they have not used electricity provided under the said service of RR No.NSP 1148. Furthermore, the said connection had also been removed by the appellants in the last week of April 2022. Thus prayed this Hon'ble Commission to take necessary action against OPs/appellants.
Commission heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties to the appeal and perused the impugned order, grounds of appeal and appeal papers. Now Commission has to decide whether impugned order passed by the Commission below is contrary to facts and law as appealed?
Let us go through the order dated 08.01.2018 and 08.02.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Complainant filed Writ Petition Nos.39351-39352 and 42800 of 2016 (GM-KEB) against the OPs and other 03 villagers who objected to draw service line. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka disposed of the said writ as thus:
"Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to either obtain the suitable consent from the neighbouring property owners who are likely to be affected by the erection of power supply lines or the transformer or to give her own consent for setting up of the transformer in front of her own house, to which the learned counsel for the respondent bescom fairly submits that upon the petitioner doing so, the power supply will be made available to the petitioner, subject to fulfilling the other procedural requirements."
The complainant/respondent aggrieved by the said order passed in WP has preferred Writ Appeal No.719/2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had passed an order on 08.02.2021 wherein could see in para-3 and 4 as thus:
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite letter being given for the transformer to be set up in front of her house, the respondent-BESCOM is not responding to the request made by the appellant.Noting the said submission, this court by Order dated 18.01.2021 directed the appellant to submit a letter to the BESCOM categorically informing BESCOM that transformer can be installed in front of her house.As directed by this court, the appellant has addressed a letter to the BESCOM on 18.01.2021, copy of which is furnished, which was duly acknowledged by the BESCOM.Office copy of the said letter is produced before this court along with a Memo dated 22.01.2021.In the letter, the second paragraph reads as under:
"I hereby categorically give my consent to the BESCOMto set up transformer of Nirantara Jyothi Yojana line and complete the power connection work to my property at the Earliest.
The above mentioned Writ Appeal had been listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 18.01.2021 and upon hearing the appeal, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct me to address a letter to you conveying my consent to set up transformer in my property in consonance with the order of the learned single Judge".
4. This court heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents 1 to 4.There is no representation on behalf of the respondents 5 to 7.Accordingly, after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusing the records, we pass the following order:
Writ Appeal is disposed of by directing the respondent no.2 BESCOM to consider the letter dated 18.01.2021 and provide electricity connection in terms of the order of the learned single Judge.
Ordered accordingly.
The Commission below despite of knowing the fact that the complainant/respondent should either take consent from the neighbours or should agree for setting up of the transformer in front of her house as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, firstly had directed OPs/appellants to give power connection to the areca nut de-husking machine to be installed by the complainant/respondent from a transformer which is nearby her house/land under Neeranthara Jyothi feeder (scheme) within 45 days from the date of order and contradict to the first order had further directed OPs to give power connection as per the letter dated 18.01.2021 wherein the complainants/respondent had given consent categorically to BESCOM to set up the transformer in front of her house, which in our view is vitiated and is contrary to its own order which calls for interference of this Commission.
The appellants/OPs submits that they had serviced the Installation of the complainant/respondent areca nut de-husking machine on the existing transformer in front of the complainant house vide Installation bearing RR No.NSP1148, under LT5(b) Tariff on 17.02.2022 and even then complainants/respondents have been prosecuting the EA/44/2021 before the Commission below on the ground that they required power supply from Neeranthara Jyothi Scheme. To show the same they had produced the 05 Photographs to show that the OPs/appellant have tried to draw the service line at the time there was obstructions from the neighbouring land owners, Copy of Sketch showing that the proposed LT line and existed transformer with service certificate, 06 photographs to show that the power supply has been serviced on the existing transformer situated near place of the complainants/respondents. But on the contrary, complainants/respondents submits that the photographs to show that electric meter board and electric connection had been provided by them by fixing the same to a pole of their shed in their land in front of their house and wrote as NSP1148 under Rural Feeder Scheme. That connection was provided from 25 KV Transformer which already exists in front of their house and is not the connection under Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder Scheme. Further the connection had been removed by the appellants in the last week of April, 2022. To support their contention complainants/respondents had produced the photograph to show the present condition of the electric connection said to have been given by the appellants/OPs.
Commission on keen examination of all the documents produced by the parties to the appeal found that complainants/respondents are right in contending that the appellants/OPs had given electric connection from the Rural Feeder and not under Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder Scheme. The very fact is clearly established by the sketch produced by appellants/OPs which shows that the connection provided is under the Existed 11KV Rural Feeder (Agri Feeder). No doubt it is clear that the neighbouring land owners are obstructing OPs/appellants to draw a service line from the existing Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder, but facts remain that when complainants/respondents vide its letter dated 18.01.2021 had given consent categorically to BESCOM/appellants/OPs to set-up the transformer of Neeranthara Jyothi Feeder and when there is an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 08.02.2021 to consider the letter dated 18.01.2021 and provide electricity connection in terms of the order of the learned single Judge, question may arise that what stopped OPs/appellants to set up the transformer in front of the complainants/respondents own house. The Commission below had passed the order on 21.04.2021 i.e., after the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its Writ Appeal filed by complainants/respondents. OPs/appellants would have comply the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka before getting the order of the Commission below since the Commission below had passed its order only after the span of more than 02 months from the date of order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Nonetheless, the appellants/OPs had preferred this appeal on 27.06.2022 i.e., after the delay of 402 days and had filed IA U/s 05 of the Limitation Act along with the affidavit sworn-in by one Mr.Anil Kumar D S/o Late M.Devaraju, aged about 51 years, Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), O & M, Nittur Sub- Division, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Nittur, now at Bengaluru, wherein the said AEE (Ele) of appellants company had sworn in that the OPs have communicated to complainants to produce NOC from the land owners and to produce the documents by its communication dated 19.05.2021 and 24.05.2021 but complainants without producing the documents had filed EA/44/2021 before DCDRC, Tumkuru and thus sought for condonation of delay of 402 days in filing the appeal. But facts remain that OPs/appellant had only stated in their affidavit that they had communicated on 19.05.2021 and 24.05.2021 to complainants/respondent to produce NOC from the Land owners but to prove the same had not produced any documents to show that they had communicated to complainants on 19.05.2021 and 24.05.2021 as well nor had produced the reply to the said communication by the complainants/respondents. It is only after filing of EA/44/2021 on 22.09.2021 by complainants/respondents before the Executing Commission to execute the award and only after the Executing Commission proceeded to take necessary actions to execute the award, had preferred the said appeal on 27.06.2022. Therefore, Commission did not find any grounds to condone the delay of 402 days in preferring the said appeal.
In view of the above discussion, it would be appropriate to modify the impugned order, since the Commission below had passed its order contradict to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. As such, Commission proceed to allow the appeal in part by modifying the impugned order in the following terms:
Complaint is allowed in part.Consequently directed OPs to follow the order dated 08.02.2018 and 08.02.2021 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
Further OPs are directed to adjust the amount if any paid by the complainants earlier to get the power connection and if any additional charges incurred while providing the connection, OPs are directed to collect the same from the complainants with due intimation.In case of excess amount paid by the complainants earlier, the same shall be refunded to complainants along with interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of payment till realization.
OPs are hereby directed to comply the said order within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OPs shall return the entire amount paid by the complainant earlier for availing power connection under Neeranthara Jyothi Scheme along with interest @ 06% p.a. and shall borne the entire cost of setting-up of the transformer in front of the complainants house to give power connection under Neeranthara Jyothi Scheme.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady MemberJudicial MemberPresident *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER