BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.632 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.98 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, Guntur.
Between:
Potturi Tulasidas,
S/o.Venkata Koteswara Rao,
R/o.D.No.26-5, High School Road,
Gandhipet, Chilakaluripet. ..Appellant/complainant
And
- Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Divisional Engineer, Near Rythu
Bazar, Guntur.
- Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Near RTC
Bus stand, Chilakaluripet.
- Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Assistant Engineer, Near RTC
Busstand, Chilakaluripet.
..Respondents/
Opp.parties.
For the Appellant : Party in person.
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s P.Vinod Kumar
F.A.No.521 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.98 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM, Guntur.
Between:
- Potturi Hariprasad,
S/o.late Venkata Koteswara Rao
Aged about 62 years, Occ:Retd.,
H.No.26-5, 1st floor, RVSCES High
School Road, Chilakaluripet,
Guntur District.
- Smt.Potturi Vijayalakshmi
W/o.P.Hari Prasad,
Aged about 58 years, Occ:Housewife,
H.No.26-5, 1st floor, RVSCES High
School Road, Chilakaluripet,
Guntur District. ..Appellants/
Third parties with leave petition/
Aggrieved parties
And
- Potturi Tulasidas,
S/o.late Venkata Koteswara Rao,
R/o.D.No.26-5, High School Road,
Gandhipet, Chilakaluripet,
Guntur District. Respondent/complainant
- M/s.Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Divisional Engineer, Near Rythu
Bazar, Guntur.
- M/s.Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Near RTC
Bus stand, Chilakaluripet, Guntur Dist.,
- M/s.Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.
Limited, Assistant Engineer, Near RTC
Busstand, Chilakaluripet, Guntur Dist.,
..Respondents/
Opp.parties.
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.K.Visweswara Rao.
Counsel for the Respondents: M/s Mary Legal Consultancy-R1
M/s P.VinodKumar R2-R4
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN
Order (As per Sri T.ASHOK KUMAR Hon’bleMEMBER)
***
The appeal F.A.No.632/2012 is preferred by the complainant and F.A.No.521/2013 is preferred by third parties seeking leave to prefer appeal against the order in C.C.No.98/2012 dated 04-7-2012 on the file of District Forum, Guntur. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is residing in house bearing door No.26-5 with electricity service connection bearing No.10868 since 1985. He is regular in payment of electricity consumption charges. He filed OS No.50/1985 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Narasaraopet against his brother and father in respect of the subject house and thereafter was unsuccessful in respect of the said suit in the Hon’ble High Court of AP and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
On 22-9-2011, third opposite party served a notice on the complainant threatening to disconnect power supply in respect of the said service connection and the complainant gave reply to it. Thereafter opposite parties disconnected power supply on 09-6-2012 and had taken away the meter. The complainant alleges that such disconnection of power supply amounts to deficiency in service and he suffered untold misery and thus estimated the suffering at Rs.18,00,000/- and filed the complaint for restoration of power supply and the aforementioned compensation and costs.
Opposite parties remained exparte.
The complainant filed his affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A5. Having heard the complainant and considering the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly directing the opposite parties to restore power supply to the house bearing NO.26-5 within two days of receipt of the order and to pay Rs.1000/- towards costs.
Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred F.A.No.632/2012 and mainly contended that the District Forum ought to have directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 18 lakhs compensation for the inconvenience caused to him and also prayed for payment of Rs.30,000/- towards litigation charges.
The third parties after taking leave of this Commission preferred F.A.No.521/2013 and mainly contended that the order under appeal is not sustainable either in law or facts and that the respondent/complainant is not entitled for any share in the subject house as per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of AP in AS 2295/1998 and the complainant also preferred special leave to appeal in (civil) Nos.12661-12662/2009 and the Hon’ble Supreme court of India has dismissed the SLPs confirming the order of the Hon’ble High Court. In pursuance of the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the third parties have made a representation dt.7-12-2011 to the Chief General manager, Projects, APSPDCL to disconnect the service connection bearing No.10868 to the subject house as he is not entitled to any share in the said house and the District Forum without examining the legal aspects has erroneously directed to restore the power supply on 09-6-2012 and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Heard the complainant and respondents and also counsel for the appellants/third parties with reference to their respective contentions.
Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in facts or on law?
It is not in dispute that the complainant in F.A.No.632/2012 was unsuccessful in getting a share in respect of the house bearing No.26-5 at Chilakaluripet and he filed O.S.No.50/1985 which was decreed on 06-7-1998 granting 1/3rd share to him on which the third parties/appellants in FA 521/2013 preferred AS Nos.1644/1998 questioning the said order dated 06-7-98 and the complainant in FA 632/2012 filed AS.No.2295/1998 seeking enhancement of the granted share from 1/3rd to 50% and the Hon’ble High Court of AP by way of a common order dated 06-11-2008 had set aside the decree of the Hon’ble Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet by allowing AS No.1644/1998 and dismissed the appeal in AS 2295/1998 of the complainant against which he preferred special leave to appeal in (civil) Nos.12661-12662/2009 and the Hon’ble Supreme court of India has dismissed the SLPs confirming the order of the Hon’ble High Court.
Admittedly the order under appeal is an exparte one. The complainant stated that some more persons have to be impleaded in the consumer complaint. His brother in the capacity of third person filed FA 521/2013 challenging the impugned order. In view of the order of Hon’ble High Court which was confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme court, their presence is necessary in the consumer complaint for adjudication of the matter as they are otherwise aggrieved by the order of the District Forum.
In order to decide whether the complainant can continue electricity service connection in his name to the said house in view of the civil litigation which attained finality has to be decided by affording opportunity to the opposite parties as well as appellants/third parties to put forth their written versions, evidence affidavits and documents. The parties across the bench agreed for remanding the matter to the District Forum for disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both sides as well as the appellants in FA 521/2013 to file written version, evidence affidavit and documents after impleading the appellants of FA 521/2013 and the other persons which the complainant is seeking to implead in the consumer complaint.
In the result the appeal, F.A.No.632/2012 is allowed setting aside the order of the District and remitting back the matter to it for fresh disposal in accordance with law and after impleading the appellants in FA 521/2013and after giving opportunity to the both parties as well as appellants/third parties in F.A.No.521/2013 to put forth their written versions, evidence affidavits and documents and F.A.No.521/2013 is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER.
MEMBER.
JM Dt.07-2-2014
.
