K Pushpa Leela vs Divisional Engineer (De), Apspdcl

REVISION petition no. 4692 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment/ order dated 11.09.2012 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (''the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 336 of 2012.

THE brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner is an agriculturist having an agricultural pump set in the field. In the month of October 2010, electric poles fell down due to heavy wind and rains and electric power was disrupted. Despite her repeated requests the respondent neither erected the poles nor restored the power supply. The petitioner could not raise the maize crop for want of water. When the petitioner complained to the Assistant Engineer, the officer replied stating that the new poles would be erected within a week. Later he further informed the petitioner that the poles were sanctioned and they were available at Nandamuru village and a person was engaged to fetch the poles and this process it had took seven months'' time. After erecting the poles there was no power supply as the transformer was burnt due to short circuit. Some of the poles were bent and finally on 16.05.2011 the Assistant Engineer informed that the poles were erected and things was done. When the petitioner questioned the line man he stated that he had installed the poles without the knowledge of the Assistant Engineer. When the petitioner complained to the Assistant Engineer he came and found that there was no transformer and he sought time. The transformer was finally installed on 02.06.2011. Petitioner stated that she has suffered a loss of crop amounting to Rs.50,000/ - and Rs.3,200/ - towards labour, Rs.5,000/ - towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/ - towards documentation charges.

THE electricity board resisted the case. However, it admitted that the petitioner was having an agricultural service connection. On inspection, they had found that some of the electric poles had fallen down in the fields in the month of October 2010 due to heavy gales and rain. The land of the petitioner was far away from the road. It was filled with full of mud and it was not possible to transport the poles to replace the fallen poles. They, therefore, they waited for some time. Later after two weeks they found that there was a black gram crop in the field and the farmers did not allow them to erect poles. It became difficult for them to transport the electric poles due to existing black gram crop. In the month of April 2011 the petitioner''s husband informed over phone that the distribution transformer was not working. They then sent the linemen who found that the bushing rod was damaged and a new one was installed and electricity power was restored to the petitioner immediately. Later they got another complaint dated 23.05.2011 that the petitioner was not getting power to the bore -well. Line men went and found that the transformer had failed due to power demand situation. On 02.06.2011 the respondent replaced it with another transformer and same was installed and power supply was restored. At no time maize was raised in and around these lands. The allegation by the petitioner has been made in order to avail a wrongful gain. There are four agricultural connections in the said distribution transformer. No one ever made any complaint except the petitioner. In fact there was a water channel running adjacent land of the petitioner, where plenty of water was available. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed with costs. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Vijayawada, Krishna District vide its order dated 10.04.2012 while allowing the complaint in part observed thus: "In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/ - towards compensation with interest therein @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint dated 02.09.2011 till the date of payment and to pay Rs.1,000/ - towards costs of the complainant."

DISSATISFIED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission vide their order dated 11.09.2012 came to the conclusion that: "therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had sustained any loss of crop due to non -supply of electricity. In fact the very riots had made a mention that they did not allow the electricity department to lay poles in view of the fact that they raised crops and by erecting the poles the crop will be damaged. No motive was attributed to those farmers who confirmed the version of the opposite party electricity board. The District Forum in fact said that: ''though the complainant is not entitled to compensation as claimed certainly she is entitled to compensation for the loss of amenity due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. When there was so power supply at least for about two months we feel that some reasonable compensation may be allowed. Though the material placed may not be useful to make exact assessment we feel that a sum of Rs.10,000/ - may be allowed as compensation to the complainant''.

We may state that obviously to get over this comment the complainant preferred appeal by calculating the amount at Rs.20,000/ - per acre. This all self -serving statement without any record. There is no more complaint from the complainant, that there was no electricity supply to her filed after erection of poles and transformer. Since absolutely there is no evidence, we do not see any ground to enhance the compensation that was awarded by the District Forum. There are no merits in the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs."

HENCE , the present revision petition.

WE have heard the authorised representative of the petitioner Mr K Venkatraman and the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

THE main contention of the petitioner is that he has not been adequately compensated for her loss due to non -provision of electricity resulting in deficiency of water to enable her to grow maize crop. The authorised representative has also drawn our attention to the estimate which is based on the letter received by her from the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Ungutur Mandal, Krishna District. Vide letter dated 19.04.2012 the petitioner had written to the Joint Director (Administration), Krishna District which reads as under: "Attention Sri Sudhakara Rao, JD Dear Sir, This has reference to my telephonic talk with you, I directed by Smt Vijaya Laxmi, Additional Director at Commissionarate of Agriculture at Hyderbad. I have the land at Vermanda, Ungutur (M) Krishna district and I am in need of the following information:

1.0 The average yielding of maize in this Mandal Quintal/ Acre

2.0 Market Price of maize Quintal

3.0 Cost of Expenditure Acre

I will be very much thankful for your information on the office letter".

IN reply, the petitioner was informed by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Krishna District vide letter dated 21.05.2012 which reads as under: "Respected Madam,

Sub: Yield Data Average yield of Maize Crop in Rice followed Lands regarding. As per the above subject the yield in Ungutur Mandal is 26 Quintals per acre and price per quintal is rs.1100/ - for the year 2010 -11. The cost of cultivation for the crop is up to Rs.16,500/ - per acre. This is for your kind information".

THE petitioner in his complaint before the District Forum had made the following prayer: The District Forum may kindly grant the petitioner with compensation of Rs.61,200/ - towards; To grow maize after paddy and would have earned Rs.50,000/ - over my land of five acres. It may be known that the petitioner had spent about Rs.75,000/ - to dig bore well in her field to grow such crops. Finally the petitioner could not grow having bore -well in her field as there was no power; Was it summer, where power shortage was there? No it was winter. Then why the petitioner did not get power? Petitioner did not pay bribe. Hence, compensation towards crop loss Rs.50,000/ -; Incurred additional amount of Rs.3200/ - at the rate of Rs.400/ day in engaging a person to get water from village for 8 man days during (a) crop cutting (b) on the day to keep paddy in one place (c) and on the day of harvesting; Towards mental agony for 8 months going on contacting by phones, and by web complaints Rs.5,000/ -; Documentation charges Rs.3000/ -

AS per the prayer in the revision petition, the petitioner is seeking claim of Rs.50,000/ - on the basis of the letter received from the Mandal Agricultural Officer, according to which petitioner''s loss was of Rs.63,525/ - as per the statistical data given by the agriculture department. In addition to her prayer made in her complaint to the District Forum, the petitioner now seeks to enhance the amount towards costs/ documentation charges from Rs.3000/ to Rs.20,000/ -.

MR K Venkatraman, the authorised representative of the petitioner drew our attention to the page 108 which is supposedly the account of the amount spent by her on the maize crop. However, on our enquiry he could not produce any bills for the purchase of maize seeds. In fact, it is very clear from his complaint that she had not grown maize. In her complaint she has stated that: "e. After paddy, we wanted to grow maize in my field of 5 acres. As water was not there, and AE had not been responding we could not grow maize in my fields, as maize needs water, as such we had lost crop".

THE limited issue raised in the revision petition was enhancement of compensation. We agree with the State Commission that the complainant has not given any evidence to show that she sustained any loss of crop due to non -supply of electricity. The petitioner has failed to produce any bills to prove that she had sown crop of maize which failed due to lack of water. Further, she has calculated the loss based on the letter obtained in May 2012, two years after the cause of action which occurred in October 2010.

THE Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 3 Scale 654has observed: "Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora."

WE agree with the State Commission that there is no evidence or ground made out by the petitioner based on which the compensation awarded by the District Forum can or even should be enhanced.

THUS , no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act. The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, the present revision petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost.