M.C.KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. JUNIOR ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the complainant before the District Forum, respondents are the opposite parties.

(2.) The complaint is filed under the following circumstances: The complainant is an agriculturist, and owning an extent of about 12 acres of land at Maruthadu Village at Cuddalore Taluk. The complainant has obtained two service connections bearing No.44 & 47 for the irrigation purposes of his lands. At the relevant point of time, the complainant was cultivating sugarcane crops, in a portion of the land, and other agricultural operations in the remaining land. Suddenly on 9.8.2002, there was no power supply and the complainant came to know that certain wires in the transformers installed in the adjoining areas were removed. Immediately thereafter, the complainant has reported the said fact to the 1st opposite party and requested for service connection. Since no action was initiated, he was constrained to approach the 1st opposite party on various occasions and also gave a written representation to the 2nd opposite party about the delay in effecting the service connection. Finally, after a delay of 25 days, the service connection was effected. In the result, he has incurred a loss in the course of his agricultural operations. Hence he preferred complaint seeking relief as stated therein. 2. The opposite parties have resisted the said complaint by contending that there was a theft of electricity supply to a stretch of 2372 meters, which came to the knowledge of the 1st opposite party, and in order to commence investigation with regard to the said theft in the nearby area, more particularly in the area where the transformers was situated, necessary complaint was given to the local police station. There is no delay on the part of the opposite parties, in as much as immediate action was initiated on receipt of relevant report from the farm with regard to the theft of energy. It is only the local police took some more time to register the case and in the said process, there was a delay, for which the opposite party could not be held responsible and as such there is no deficiency in service and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. A further contention was also raised by the opposite parties to the effect that the complainant viz. an agriculturist, who is enjoying the power supply for free of cost, cannot be considered as a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The District Forum accepting the contentions raised by the opposite party on the question of jurisdiction and also by rendering finding that the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the delay in restoring the connection, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the above appeal is preferred amongst various other grounds as set out in the Memorandum of grounds.

(3.) The appellant / party in person would submit that he was made to suffer for no fault of him and the 1st opposite party has not initiated any prompt action in effecting the reconnection. In as much as the theft cannot be attributed to him, there cannot be any difficulty to cause necessary investigation simultaneously and also effecting service connection to him, who is carrying out agricultural operation, more particularly the crops having been planted very recently at the relevant point. It is further submitted by him that the District Forum ought not to have dismissed the complaint by holding that he is not a consumer by wrongly applying the decision rendered by the Honble National Commission in a connected case and accordingly prayed for appropriate orders.