K PUSHPA LEELA Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (DE), APSPDCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.