State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
F,A,967/2011:1.The Chairman, ... vs F.A.No.967/11:1.Punyam Desavelu ... on 26 February, 2013
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. F.A.No.967/2011 against C.C.No.10/2010, Dist. Forum-I,Chittoor. Between: 1.The Chairman, A.P.State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad . (OP.1 is deleted as per orders in I.A.No.124 of 2009 dt.16.10.2010) 2. The Chairman Managing Director, APSPDCL, near Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupathi. 3. The Superintending Engineer O/o.APSPDCL, Bhavaninagar, Tirupati. 4. The Divisional Engineer(Operations) O/o.APSPDCL, N.G.O.Colony, Tirupati. 5. The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operations) O/o.APSPDCL, Kollaveedhi, Nagari Village post and Mandal. 6. The Addl. Asst. Engineer (Operation) , O/o.APSPDCL, Pannur Village and Post, and Vijayapuram Mandal. .Appellants Opp.parties And 1.Punyam Desavelu Reddy, S/o.Anki Reddy, aged 56 years, 2. Punyam Vasanthamma, W/o.Desavelu Reddy, Aged 54 years, Respondents Complainants Both are Hindus, cultivation, residing at Alapakam village & post , Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.Hari Babu F.A.No.73/2012 against C.C.No.10/2010, Dist. Forum-I,Chittoor. Between : 1.Punyam Desavelu Reddy, S/o.Anki Reddy , aged 56 years, 2. Punyam Vasanthamma, W/o.Desavelu Reddy, Aged 54 years, Appellants/ Complainants Both are Hindus, Cultivation, residing at Alapakam Village & Post , Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District. And 1.The Chairman, A.P.State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad . (OP.1 is deleted as per orders in I.A.No.124 of 2009 dt.16.2.2010) 2. The Chairman Managing Director, A.P.State Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., near Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupathi, Chittoor Dist. 3. The Superintending Engineer, O/o.A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,, Bhavaninagar, Tirupati, Chittoor Dist. 4. The Divisional Engineer(Operations) O/o.APSPDCL, N.G.O.Colony, Puttur, Chittoor Dist. 5. The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operations) O/o.APSPDCL, Kollaveedhi, Nagari Village Post and Mandal. 6. The Addl. Asst. Engineer (Operation) , O/o.APSPDCL, Pannur Village and Post, And Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor Dist. Respondents Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.M.Hari Babu Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.P.Vinod Kumar QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order : (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member).
*** F.A.No.967/2011 was filed by the opposite parties and F.A.No.73/2012 was filed by the complainants, against the order dt.5.10.2011 made in C.C.No.10/2010, on the file of the District Forum-1,Chittoor which is filed by the complainants seeking direction to the opposite parties to restore the power supply to S.C.No.183 and 184 of Ponnur Division and to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs with interest at 24% p.a. towards damages and compensation for mental agony.
Since both the appeals arise out of one and the same order made in C.C.No.10/2010, both the appeals are clubbed for common hearing and disposed of by way of passing common order..
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainants as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainant nos. 1 and 2 are the husband and wife. They are owning 10 acres of cultivable land and they are depending on cultivation. In the year 1992, the complainant no.1` obtained S.C.No.183 and the complainant no.2 obtained S.C.No.184. Since then the complainants are using the electricity energy and paying the charges regularly without any default. The service connections of the complainants are single phased and they installed sugarcane crusher which is being used for manufacture of jaggery with the permission of opposite parties, by paying necessary charges, for the consumption of the electrical energy. The power supply is for 12 hours at the time of obtaining the service connection and that the sugarcane crop is raised with the help of the said service connections.
While so, on 1.7.2009 the staff of the opposite parties disconnected the above said two service connections, without assigning any reasons and without prior intimation or notice to the complainants. The complainants approached the opposite parties and requested them to restore the supply, but they have postponed the same on one pretext or the other. Due to sudden disconnection of power supply, the sugarcane crop dried up to some extent and on account of rains the crop has been regained, but still there is damage to the crop and the crop is ready for the harvest and the crushing of the sugarcane has to be started.
On 6.7.2009, the complainants sent his requisition in writing to the opposite parties, for which the opposite party no.6 alone sent a reply with false allegations stating that they have not disconnected the electric supply and further asked the complainants to use three phase supply. The crushing motor and borewell motor which are being used by the complainants from the year 1992 are single phase motors. The three phase energy is not sufficient to run the motors. Therefore, shifting from single phase to three phase, all of a sudden, leads to several complications and there is every possibility of the complainants losing their crop worth Rs.10 lakhs. The acts of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants subjected to mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opposite party no.6 filed written version in the form of objections denying the material allegations made in the complaint and admitted that the complainant no.`1 obtained service connection no.183 and complainant no.2 obtained service connection no.184 in the year 1992 and that they are consumers and that the opposite parties have given permission for single phase only for the purpose of agriculture.
This opposite party further contended, that as per the terms of the agreement of APSPDCL, the opposite party is having every right to regulate the duration of supply, time to time, depending upon the availability of the generation of power. So also, there is no mention of time of supply in the agreement. They have not disconnected the service connections in question. This opposite party further contended that on 26.6.2009, survey was conducted under Alapakam SS III Transformer for reinforcement of existing lines with HVDS system. At that time, it was observed that the complainants were utilizing the supply with the help of single phase transformer, existing nearby to his fields to service connection nos. 183 and 184. As per the existing terms and conditions of APSPDCL, seven hours supply is being given to the agricultural consumers in a day. But the complainants were using 22 hours supply in a day, through the single phase transformer, since single phase supply will be available for 22 hours in a day which is meant for domestic utilization only. Hence the said facts were immediately explained to the complainants and requested them to use seven hours supply through existing LT 3 phase line meant for agricultural purpose, in the same premises. Surprisingly, later the registered notice dt.6.7.2009 was received on 8.7.2009 from the complainant, addressed to opposite party no.2 stating that the service connection nos.183 and 184 were disconnected by the opposite parties, without prior intimation which is false, for which this opposite party sent suitable reply requesting the complainants to use seven hours supply, for agricultural purpose, with existing agricultural supply line and also it was informed that existing single phase transformer will be dismantled within a week since alternative supply for the agricultural purpose is readily available at the same place. So disconnection of the said service connections does not arise as existing agricultural motor can be used in three phase supply also.
This opposite party further contended that as on the date of the written version, no supply was disconnected for service connection nos. 183 and 184 by the opposite parties and that the complainants are using supply through existing three phase line for their service connection nos.183 and 184 for agricultural purpose. The exiting single phase motors are capable of running in three phase supply also without any problem or modification. Hence, the energy in three phase system is capable of running existing motors. The complainants used seven hours three phase electric supply in L.T.Lines for the sugarcane crop without any complications.
The crop was also good, therefore the loss of Rs.10 lakhs does not arise.
This opposite party further contends that the complainants used single phase supply for more than specified time by APSPDCL i.e. 22 hours in a day whereas all other consumers are using only 7 hours a day which is illegal and caused heavy loss to APSPDCL. Hence the loss sustained by APSPDCL works out to Rs.3 lakhs, by using the single phase line by the complainants, since 1992 for 22 hours in a day.
The further contention of the opposite party is that the complainants have taken separate permission from APSPDCL for sugarcane crushing by paying necessary charges. The complainants have obtained permission from APSPDCL only during the year 2007 for sugarcane crushing, hence there is no negligence or lapse of service on the part of the APSPDCL. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their case, on behalf of the complainants, the complainant no.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A24 . On behalf of the opposite parties, the evidence affidavits of M.Bhaskar , Addl.Asst. Engineer of opp.party no.6 and K . Mani. Jr.Line Man of Bugga Agraharam village Nagiri mandal were filed and they were cross examined by the complainants and Exs.B1 to B13 were marked.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainants failed to establish that the service connections were literally disconnected and also they failed to prove that on account of that, they suffered financial loss to a tune of Rs.10 lakhs as averred in the complaint. However, the complainants have established deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to each the complainants as damages for deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainants.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred appeal in F.A.No.967/2011 and having not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainants preferred appeal in F.A.No.73/2012 questioning the above order.
The appellants/complainants in F.A.No.73/2012 filed a petition in FAIA.267/2012 praying to receive the bills issued by Sugar Factory i.e. Prudential Mouli Sugars Ltd. to show receipt of the sugarcane from the complainants, as additional evidence and the said petition was allowed after hearing both sides. Bills are received subject to proof and relevancy and marked as Ex.A25 as set of 45 bills.
The appellants/opposite parties in F.A.No.967/2011 filed a separate petition FAIA.no.2551/2011 to receive two letters, one is informing the hours of the supply to the agriculturist and another is issued by the Director (Operations), APSPDCL at Tirupathi as additional evidence. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed and the documents were received subject to proof and relevancy and they are marked as Exs.B14 and B15 respectively.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record by both the parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside as contended by the opposite parties? or liable to be modified as contended by the complainants?
The facts that the complainant no.1 is the husband of complainant no.2 and both of them are agriculturists being owners of about 10 acres of cultivable land in Alapakam village, that in the year 1992 both complainants have obtained service connection nos.183 and 184 in their respective names and they were given permission by the opposite party no.6 for single phase only, for the purpose of agriculture, during release of services are not in dispute.
These facts are also proved by A1 and A2 receipts dt.27.12.91 issued in the name of the complainant no.1, Exs.A3 and A4 the pass books issued in the name of the complainants regarding the service connection nos.183 and 184 respectively and Exs.B1 and B2 are the test reports and LT Agreement pertaining to the service connection nos.183 and 184 of Alapakam village.
The contention of the complainant is that their service connection nos.183 and 184 were disconnected on 1.7.2009 by the officials of opposite parties. On the other hand the contention of the opposite parties is that both the service connections are being continued even now and infact the complainants themselves are enjoying the three phase connection and as such they never disconnected the service connections that stand in the name of the complainants.
Along with the appeal, the complainants filed I.A.No.266/2012 in F.A.No.73/2012 praying to direct the opposite parties to restore the electricity supply to the petitioners agricultural service connection nos.183 and 184 of Alapakam village, pending disposal of the appeal. In that application, after hearing both sides and having regard to the contentions of both the parties and on the request of both the parties, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify whether there is power supply to the service connections of both the complainants, this Commission appointed Mr.I.Pradeep Kumar, Advocate as Commissioner to verify as to the restoration of service connection and file his report. Accordingly, the Commissioner visited the service connection nos.183 and 184 of the complainants, at their land and found that there is no single phase power supply, however there is power supply with three phase (7 hours) to the service connection nos.183 and184 as on the date of his visit i.e. on 5.5.2012 accordingly the Commissioner submitted his report. In his report he has stated that he has noticed water supply to the complainants agricultural land which was with full of water on the date of his visit. Both the parties have not filed any objections to the report of the Commissioner filed in this appeal. The Commissioners report therefore established that now there is three phase power supply. to the agricultural land of the complainants through service connection nos. 183 and 184 and that there is no single phase connection to the said service connections of the complainants.
It is the case of the opposite parties that on 26.6.2009 a survey was conducted under Alapakam SS III Transformer for reinforcement of existing lines with HVDS system . During the survey it was observed that the complainants were utilizing electric supply with the help of single phase transformer, existing nearby his fields, through service connection nos. 183 and 184. The further case of the opposite parties is that as per the existing terms and conditions of APSPDCL, 7 hours supply is being given to the agriculture consumers in a day. But the complainants were given 22 hours supply in a day through single phase transformer. The single phase supply will be available for 22 hours, in a day, which is meant for domestic utilization only and using it for agriculture purpose is contra to the terms and conditions of the contract. Hence, the facts were immediately explained to the complainants and requested to use seven hours supply through existing LT three phase line meant for agricultural purpose in the same premises.
The complainants have admitted that on 1.7.2009 the staff of the opp.parties came to their land, but contended that they disconnected the two service connections without assigning any reasons and also without prior intimation or notice to the complainants. It is not in dispute that the original of Ex.A11 letter dt.6.7.2009 was issued by the complainant no.1 to the opposite parties alleging that the subject service connections were disconnected by the opposite parties and requested for restoration of the service connections. Ex.A12 is the reply given by the opposite party no.6 marking a copy to other superior officials i.e. opposite parties 1 to 5 stating that the electric supply is available at the subject service connections including three phase line for utilization. It is also stated in Ex.A12 reply that as per the terms and conditions of APSPDCL, only 7 hours supply is being given to the consumers for agricultural purpose, in a day. But the complainants are using 22 hours electric supply in a day, through single phase transformer in the subject services which is violation of APSPDCL regulations. Under this reply the complainant no.1 was informed that single phase transformer and connected lines available near the above services will be dismantled within a week, since alternative three phase supply is also readily available near his services for utilization and requested the complainant no.1 to use 7 hours three phase supply, in a day, either with available motor or installing three phase motor, as per the rules and regulations of APSPDCL and cooperate with them.
Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that by the date of Ex.A12, the subject service connections were dismantled by the opposite parties and that after receiving Ex.A12 reply, the complainants themselves connected the agricultural service connection nos.183 and 184 to 7 hours three phase supply immediately, which is available in the same premises and since then they have been using three phase line, through their service connections 183 and 184,for agricultural purpose.
From the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and suggestions put to them, as rightly observed by the District Forum, the stand of respective parties is very much contrary to their own case and the suggestions running self contradictory.
The further case of the complainants is that the crushing motor and the borewell motor which are being used by the complainants from the year 1992 are single phase motors and three phase energy is not sufficient to run the motors, therefore shifting from single phase to three phase leads to several complications and there is every possibility of the complainant losing his crop worth of about Rs.10 lakhs. Except the interested averments the complaint, the complainants have not placed any evidence on record to show that three phase energy is not sufficient to run the motors.
On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that existing single phase motors are capable of running in three phase supply also without any problem or modification. Hence the energy in three phase system is capable of running existing motors and that the complainant used 7 hours three phase in LT line, for the sugarcane crop, without any complications and that the crop is also good.
In order to prove that the complainants suffered loss of sugarcane crop, the complainants have not filed any record before the District Forum. However, in this appeal, the complainants have filed a set of 45 bills issued by Sugar Factory i.e. Prudential Mouli Sugars Limited, Nindra , Nindra Mandal, Chittoor Dist. which are marked as Ex.A25.These receipts show that the complainants supplied sugar cane to the sugar factory at Chittoor. On the other hand the opposite parties filed and relied on Ex.B8 letter given by Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Chittoor to the effect that the complainants supplied sugar cane for crushing and also draws special attention to the note under the said letter which reads : FACTORY ZONE AVERAGE YIELD PER ACRE 24.2 .INDIVIDUAL GROWER ACTUAL YIELD PER ACRE 29.7. Hence it is contended that the average yield per acre of the complainants is more than the average yield recorded by the factory. As rightly observed by the District Forum, that the yield is more than average, the contention of the complainant that due to power supply the crop was damaged and they sustained loss cannot be accepted.
It is suggested to RW.1 that Ex.B8 is fabricated . RW.1 says in his evidence that on his requisition, Ex.B8 is furnished by the Sugar Factory. Further, there is no reason as to why the opposite party no.6 went to an extent of fabricating Ex.B8 to demolish the case of the complainants. Except the bald suggestions, the complainants have not produced any material to show that Ex.B8 is a fabricated document and that it was not supplied by the Sugar Factory. Ex.A25 receipts show that the complainant no.1 supplied sugarcane to Prudential Mouli Sugars Ltd., Nindra Mandal, Chittoor Dist. during the period from December, 1995 to February,1996. The contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties disconnected the subject service connections on 1.7.2009. It is therefore obvious that Ex.A25 receipts, pertains to the period prior to 1.7.2009, as such they are not relevant for consideration in this case.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complainants failed to establish that the subject service connection nos. 183 and 184 were disconnected by the opposite parties . On the other hand it is established that the service connections of the complainants are live and the service connections of the complainants are given power supply like others. The complainants have also failed to prove that the sugarcane crop raised in their fields was damaged due to the alleged disconnection of the subject service connections and that the complainants sustained loss of Rs.10 lakhs as alleged in the complaint.
The contention of the opposite parties is that as per the policy decision of APSPDCL, power supply for agricultural purpose is only 7 hours per day. They have received clear instructions from the higher officials to supply power only for 7 hours to the agricultural sector in rural areas. In support of their contention, the opposite parties have filed a statement regarding hours of supply to agriculture issued by Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited dt.10.1.2003 and a letter from the Director(Operation) APSPDCL, Tirupathi dt.27.2.2003 to all the Superintending Engineers, Operation, as additional evidence and they were marked as Exs.B14 and B15 respectively. Had these documents filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum, The District Forum would have come to a different conclusion.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the complainants have failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned order by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal no.967/2011 filed by the opposite parties is allowed and F.A.No.73/2012 filed by the complainants is dismissed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* dt.26.2.2013