Date of filing      : 09-01-2014

Date of Disposal : 07-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

Thursday, this the 7th day of MAY, 2015.

          PRESENT:  Sri P.V.Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                                      Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

                      C.C.No.8/2014

Smt. Palla Lakshmi, W/o.Subbaiah,

Hindu, aged 62 years, North Rajupalem,

Kodavalur Mandal, D.No.643,

Nellore Dist.                                                      …  Complainant

                      Vs.

1. Superintendent Engineer,

    A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

    Vidyut Bhavan, Dargamitta,

    Nellore.

2. Assistant Engineer,

    A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

    Vinjamur Mandal & Post,

    Nellore District.

3. Divisional Engineer,

   A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

   Kavali,

   Nellore Dist.                                                       … Opposite parties

This matter coming on 13-02-2015 before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri  C.P.Suresh, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI P.V.KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

1.          The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

The complainant applied for electricity connection to her field and paid Rs.6,000/- towards the charges in the form of two demand drafts drawn on State Bank of India, Kavali. The two demand drafts were handed over to the 2^nd opposite parties on 21-02-2005.  The complainant visited the office of the opposite party for giving service connection to her field.  But the opposite parties have given evasive replies.  The second opposite party endorsed the receipt of the drafts.  The opposite parties have not given service connection for the last 8 years which is illegal and deficiency of service.  The complainant is depending on the agriculture.  The complainant sustained loss in the absence of the electricity service connection.  The opposite parties were negligent and they committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint for giving immediate service connection, for payment of compensation and costs.

2.   The brief averments of the counter of the 2^nd opposite party are as follows:

      The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  After verification of records, it is found there are no entries about the receipt of the two demand drafts.  The complainant has not responded and submitted proof of the payment through demand drafts and endorsement was submitted to this respondent.  The service connection was not given to her, non-payment of the necessary charges. Even, now the service connection will be provided if she submits proof of the payment of the demand drafts.  The complainant has not suffered loss for Rs.3,50,000/-.  There is no deficiency of service in negligence.   Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

3.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a memo adopting the counter of the second opposite party.

4.   Now the point for consideration is “whether the opposite parties committed

deficiency of service, in not providing the service connection?

5.   The complainant filed her affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A3.  On behalf of the opposite parties, the assistant engineer filed his affidavit.

6.    POINT:   The complainant alleged that the opposite parties have not provided the service connection to her land, despite the payment of necessary charges by her into the bank.  The opposite parties denied such payment.  This office requested the both parties to examine the records and inform to this Forum, whether the money was credited into the accounts of the opposite parties.  Inspite of grant of such time, the opposite parties failed to place any record as desired by this office.  As such, the matter is being decided on the available material.  The document showing the possession of the land by the complainant under Ex.A3, is not necessary for the disposal of the case.  The complainant filed Ex.A2, copies of the demand drafts showing the payment of Rs.6,000/- to the A.P.Transco, Kavali.

7.           In the above documents, there are entries of some officials. The complainant contended that the above entries were made by the electricity officials.    The words A.E.Vinjamur, ADE/Klg were also mentioned in Ex.A2.  The drafts are dated            21-02-2005.  Except, denying the payments, the opposite parties failed to place any record like accounts, bank transactions in proof of their contentions.  The scope of the enquiry in this Forum is limited, compared to a civil suit.  In a civil suit, the plaintiff has to establish every fact alleged, when it was denied by the defendant.  The complainant filed the copies of the demand drafts purchased by her in favour of the opposite parties.  The fact that the demand drafts are handed over to the opposite parties is established through the entries on it.  In addition, the complainant claimed to have handed over the demand drafts in her legal notice marked Ex.A1, for disposal of complaint in this Forum, the above documents are sufficient. 

8.     What follows is, that the complainant paid necessary charges for service connection and handed over the demand drafts to the opposite parties.   The opposite parties committed a fault in not providing the service connection inspite of receiving the charges.  Hence, the opposite parties are liable to provide service connection to the land of the complainant.    The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.  However, considering the circumstances of the case, the compensation of Rs.20,000/-  will be sufficient along with costs of Rs.5,000/-.   The point is held accordingly. 

9.         In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the opposite parties to provide service connection to the field of the complainant and also pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) along with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 7th day of MAY,                  2015.    

         MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                          

                                                                     PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1. Sri C.P.Suresh, Advocate, 27-02-42, 19^th cross road, Balajinagar, Nellore.
2. Sri K.Phadmanabhaiah, Advocate, Sreerama Nilayam” 1^st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.