Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/57/2015

Vayyavuru Chenchu Krishnaiah, S/o Late V. Chenchu Ramaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Assistant Engineer, APTRANSCO - Opp.Party(s)

V.Armugon

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :06-07-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:20-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  20^th  day of   SEPTEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.57/2015

 

Vayyavur Chenchu Krishnaiah, 

S/o.Late V. Chenchu Ramaiah, Hindu,

Aged about 30 years, Advocate,

Residing at Balasamudram Village,

Paravolu Post,

Venkatagiri Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                               ..… Complainant        

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	The Assistant engineer, APTRANSCO, Venkatagiri Rural, Venkatagiri town, SPSR Nellore District.
2.	The Assistant Divisional Engineer, APTRANSCO, APSPDCL, Venkatagiri Town, SPSR Nellore District.
3.	Vijay Kumar, Old Linemen, Paravolu Gram Panchayat, Venkatagiri Town, Palakendram sub-Station, SPSR Nellore District.                                                        ...…Opposite parties

                                    

                       .

          This complaint coming on 12-09-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of  Sri U. Armugon, advocate for the complainant and                                                     Sri Penubaku Venu,  advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

            The complainant filed this complaint against  the opposite parties 1 to 3 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  prays to erect a new transformer with two services and new aluminium wire lines to the service connections of the complainant i.e., service No.4 and 116,  to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with interest  at 24% p.a.  to the complainant from the date of complaint till realization, to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as loss of crop and Rs.38,000/- for motor repair,  totally Rs.2,38,000/- as damages to the complainant and to pay costs of the complaint of Rs.10,000/- and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

           2.     The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that:  the complainant submits that  he is having Ac.10.00 of agricultural lands in              S.Nos.12-7, 10-22, 12-14, 12-13, 12-11, 12-10, 12-6, 12-8, 12-9, 12-2, 12-18,              12-17, 12-16, 12-15, 12-19, 12-3, 12-4 and 76-2A at Balasamudram village, Venkatagiri Mandal, In the said  land the complainant is regularly cultivating agriculture.  In the said  land the complainant grand father and father duged one well and one bore well and applied for two service connections to the APSPDCL.  The  electricity department sanctioned two service connections to the complainant land i.e., service Nos.4 and 116.  The service connection No.4 is in the name of  my grand father i.e., V. Jagannadham, after his demise  as a legal heir, the complainant is in possession and usage  of the  service No.4.  Prior to the installation of the service connections, the APSPDCL  erected a transform with a capacity of 63 KVA or 63 Horse power.  As per the rules and regulations of the APSPDCL, the  said 63 KVA or 63 Horse power has to give electricity supply to only 12  service meters consisting of 5 Horse Power / KVA each service meter.

 

             The complainant submits that  the first opposite party has sanctioned another service connection i.e., 13^th meter,  and  totally there are 13 service connections to the 63 KVA / Horse power transformer.  After knowing about the 13^th  service connection, the complainant made oral representation requesting the APSPDCL not to give further additional service connections, because it will be over load burden on the 63KVA / Horse power  transformer due to which the  rest of the service motors will be damaged / burnt.  Not heeding the words of the complainant, again the APSPDCL  illegally and arbitrarily allotted extra 7 service connections which is against the rules and regulations.  As the total service connections were raised to 20 service  connections the current supply is not sufficient to the complaint schedule transformer, as such  there will be low voltage for which the rest-of the service motors will be damaged / burnt.

            The complainant further submits that  for 20 service connections the  transformer needs 100 KVA / Horse power transformers.  The complainant on              27-01-2015 has given written complaint to the Superintendent Engineer, APSPDCL and  District Additional Joint Collector, Nellore  stating that the Electricity department has issued 20 service connections for which   they are supposed to give only 12 service connections to the 63 KVA / Horse power transformer.  But, no action was taken either by the APSPDCL or by the District Additional Joint Collector, Nellore.  Again, on 02-02-2015 the complainant made a written representation to the District Collector, Nellore to make  necessary enquiry and to take action against the APSPDCL for violating the rules and regulations for giving 20 service  connections from the complaint schedule transformer.

             The complainant further submits that  one Pasupuleti Thulasidasu  approached the first opposite party for new service  connection for his lands which is situated towards northern side of the complainant land.  The complainant knowing about the same requested  the  1^st opposite party not to issue any new service connection.  But, the said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu and 1^st opposite party colluded to each other and tried to issue new service connection to the said                   P. Thulasidasu lands.  At that juncture the complainant  objected to the same and stated that he will complaint the same to the higher authorities.

           The complainant  further submits that on 18-11-2014, the said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu and 1^st opposite party came  to the complainant’s  land without permission and tried to give new connection, at that juncture the complainant requested that the present complaint schedule transformer is not having that much load capacity, if at all the said P.  Thulasidasu wants any new service connection, the same may be given through  any near transformer or   through separate transformer.  On 20-11-2014, the complainant made a written representation before the Lokadalath PLC No.296/2014.  After receiving   the notice from the Lokadalath the 1^st opposite party appeared before the Hon’ble Lokadalath on                    27-12-2014 and represented that he will not give any new service connections or else erect a transformer for fresh service connections.  As, 1^st opposite party  failed to comply the previous order, the complainant again on 21-01-2015 made a written representation before the Lokadalath  PLC No.3 of 2015, the  1^st opposite party appeared and filed his counter stating that he will release the over load burden to the complaint schedule transformer, but till to day   no action was taken by 1^st opposite party. 

The complainant further submits that  the said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu requested  the complainant to sell  his land for which the complainant rejected and said that he will not sell the lands to any one at any point, having eye sore   the said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu colluded with  1^st opposite party started    harassing the complainant stating that  they will give new service connection to the said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu from complaint schedule  transformer.  The complainant submits that due to over load, his agriculture motors were burnt and incurred Rs.38,000/- for motor repairs and he could not provide sufficient  water to Ac.6.00 of paddy crop, as such the crop was totally dried and the complainant has got  Rs.2,00,000/- loss.  The said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu and 1^st opposite party again on 30-05-2015, came  to the complainant land and  tried to give new service connection for which complainant objected and stated that if any new connections were given the rest-off  the motors will be burnt for low voltage.  1^st opposite party not heeded the complainant’s words and replied that he will give new service connection to said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu.  At present,  the complainant again started cultivating  paddy crop in Ac.2.00, if  1^st opposite party  fails to disconnect the 7 service connections or issues any new connections,  the complainant has to face hurdles for low voltage and he has to suffer mental agony and also monetary loss this year also for irregular  power supply.  As there is deficiency of service by the 1 to 3 opposite parties with  active collusion of said Pasupuleti Thulasidasu the complainant lost the production of the agriculture as such the complainant suffer huge monitory loss and also mental distress due which the present complaint.

The complainant further submits that the transformer is divided in to two feeders.  In first feeder  the last two connection services belongs to the complainant.  In the second feeder the said Pasupuleti Thulasidas’s  wife is having service connection.   The complainant submits that  from  the second feeder the said  Pasupuleti Thulasidas  land is at a distance of 50 meters, whereas from the first feeder the  distance is at about 1 km.

The complainant further submits that the Andhra Pradesh government passed a G.O., stating that the APSPDCL  can  erect a new 15 H.P. transformer for every two or three motor service connections in order to avoid low voltage and poor power supply.  The complainant requested to erect a new transformer for his two service connections, but  1^st opposite party  to 3^rd opposite party protracted to sanction new transformer.  The 1^st opposite party to3rd opposite party has given new transformer to so many persons.  The complainant obtained the information through RTI Act,  it clearly reveals that the 1^st opposite party  to 3^rd opposite party erected new transformers  to third persons and submits to allow the  complaint with  costs.

3.       The opposite parties 1 to 3  filed written version with the following averments that:  The Government of Andhra Pradesh fixed monthly customary  charges at Rs.30 per month.  In the  name of  complainant, there is an agricultural service connection bearing No.116.  The complainant is also committed  default in payment of arrears of electricity consumption charges of Rs.452/-. The complainant in  para No.3 in page 2 of the complaint in the lines of 8-9 specifically stated as “The service connection No.4 is in the  name of  my grand father i.e.,             V. Jagannadam after his demise as a legal heir, I am in  possession and usage of the service No.4”.  It is  submitted that the  electricity consumption bills / demand notice bearing No.77, dated 01-06-2015 is in the name of the complainant which disclose the due amount  of Rs.452/- and it’s date of payment of the due was expired on 16-06-2015  and the supply will be disconnected by 02-07-2015.  These   particulars are clearly mentioned in the demand notice of the AG.SC.No.116. This bill / notice is obtained  under certified copy  from the Hon’ble Junnior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri has filed by the complainant in his suit, O.S.No.68/2015.  The  electricity consumption bill  / notice No.76, dated 01-06-2015 stands in the name of  V. Jagannadam is also due an amount of Rs.2,918/-.  The same bill disclosed its payment of the due and  it was also expired on 16-06-2015 and the service will be disconnected by 02-07-2015.  Both the above said service connections are entitled for disconnection without notice.  The amount of Rs.452/-  belongs to the complainant and  Rs.2,918/- belongs to the grand father of the complainant,               V. Jagannadam.  The complainant alone consuming the stated  two agricultural  connections and committed default in payment of arrears of due as mentioned above.  The Government of Andhra Pradesh fixed the said monthly customer charges at Rs.30/-  (rupees thirty only) per month to the each agricultural electricity subscriber these  customary service charges have not  been paid by the complainant and committed   default in payment of arrears of the above said bills to the APSPDCL, Venkatagiri.  The opposite parties belongs  APSPDCL, Venkatagiri being the public servants of APSPDCL demands the complainant to pay the said arrears.  The complainant with a malafide intention for getting wrongful gain   threatening the opposite parties of the above case.  The complainant in order to avoid the said dues and to put  in fear of cases filed the above false, frivolous and vexatious case with  view  to harass the opposite parties.  In fact  there is no any reasonable and probable reason to file the above case against the opposite parties No.1 to 3.

This opposite parties further submit that  in the village of Balasamudram the APSPDCL,  Venkatagiri for the first time installed 63 KVA transformer.  Subsequently as per the orders of the Hon’ble  Mandal Legal Services  Committee  cum Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri the opposite parties installed a new additional transformer 25 KVA by the APSPDCL on 28-02-2015 with the equipment No.2177072, SS-7 in order to avoid fluctuation of power  supply to the consumers.  For this 25 KVA the APSPDCL, Venkatagiri spent Rs.1,47,905.90.  The complainant in PLC No.296/2014  as filed on the file of Mandal Legal Services Committee cum Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri requested to arrange additional transformer and the same is complied with.  So there is no question of delay, negligence  and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

The opposite parties 1 to 3 bluntly denied  the entire   contents attributed  in para No.4 of the complaint.  As mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, the complainant is a consumer of APSPDCL but not an authorized technical person and advisor to the APSPDCL. He  signed with the APSPDCL (APSEB) to avail only electricity service connection on payment of due’s and arrears regularly without committing default.  Being  a consumer of APSPDCL cannot dictate or direct or demand “Not to give further additional  service connections, because it will be over load   burdens on the 63 KVA”.  The acts of the complainant is totally ultra virus and complainants acts certainly against  the Electricity Act and also against the terms and conditions of the agreement.

The complainant denied the entire contents  of the para No.5 of the complaint.  These contents are unnecessarily attributed and there is no any documentary proof   to show about  violation of rules  and regulations for giving 20 service connections from the complaint schedule transformer.  The complainant totally ignored about schedule mention  property which is   transformer wrongly cited as of his own property in O.S.No.68/2015 and in para No.5 of the complaint.  In fact the suit schedule property in O.S.No.68/2015 belongs to APSPDCL, Venkatagiri.  But  the  complainant with a malafide intension for getting  wrongful gain by ignoring rules and  regulations cited 25 KVA additional distribution transformer installed in Balasamudram village as his own property which is null and void.

        The opposite parties No.1 to 3 totally   denied the  entire   contents of  para No.6  of the complaint.  As admitted in the said para No.6, the complainant threatening opposite parties 1 to 3  not to  give electrical service connection to the wife of Pasupuleti Thulasidas, by name Pasupuleti Renemma is unjust and unmaintainable either in law or on facts.  It is the primary duty of the APSPDCL  to give agricultural  electricity connections to the bonafide agriculturist.  So after receipt of proper Development & SD  charges from the  subscriber, the APSPDCL gives  service connection to the subscribers.  Accordingly, the APSPDCL  authorities No.1 to 3 even though there are continuous threats as to not to give agricultural service connections from the complainants to the W/o.Pasupuleti Thulasidas, ignored threats of the complainants and given Agricultural  service connection to the  wife of Pasupuleti Thulasidas, byname P. Ranemma bearing No.Ag.Sc.No.129.  the complainant with a  view to harass the opposite party’s  No.1 to3  filed  this case before this Forum for getting wrongful gain and to cause loss to the opposite  parties. The complainant who is unconcerned to the APSPDCL unnecessarily causing troubles to the opposite parties 1 to 3 in respect of their official duties.  The complainant as a subscriber of APSPDCL if sustained any loss, damage and  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties  he is at liberty to get relief from the Forum by placing documentary proof on which date he sustained loss, damage and deficiency in service.  In respect of deficiency in service, loss, damage by virtue of fluctuation of power supply from the  APSPDCL  No Legal Notice was given specifically to the APSPDCL, Venkatagiri.

           The opposite parties further contended that  the complainant prior  to institution of the Civil suit, O.S.No.68/2015 on the file of the  Hon’ble Junior civil Judge, Venkatagiri and this case on the file of this Forum, the complainant file PLC No.296/2014 against opposite party No.1  with false allegations. The opposite party No.1 appeared  before the Hon’ble MLSC, Venkatagiri.  The requirement of installation of additional   transformer  at Balasamudram agreed and same is brought to the notice of higher  authorities concern.  The opposite parties 1 to3 admits these  contents only in para No.7 of the complaint.  The opposite parties No.1 to 3 bluntly  refused the remaining contents of para No.7 of the complaint.

             The opposite parties No.1 to 3 totally denied the entire contents of para No.8 of the complaint.  It is the primary  duty  of the complainant  to establish  his case as true  and correct subject to the proof  and relevancy.

              The complainant  has no any manner  of right  to seek any relief as sought in para No.13.  The complainant in sought “to erect a new transformer with two services and new aluminum wire lines”.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to grant this relief as sought by the complainant.  It is unjust and un maintainable either in law or on facts.  As stated in PLC No.296/2014 that the complainant sought additional new transformer at Balasamudram village instead of existing old 63 KVA   transformer.  Accordingly in order to avoid fluctuation  of high voltage and low voltage the opposite parties  installed  an additional transformer, 25 KVA  at Balasamudram on 28-02-2015 which is equipment No.2177072  which is SS-7.  For this 25 KVA  transformer the APSPDCL spent an amount of  Rs.1,47,905.90 Ps.  Though   the APSPDCL, Venkatagiri installed under the authority of opposite parties 1 to 3 the complainant did not pay an arrears of customary  charges to APSPDCL  under Ag.Sc.No.004 for Rs.2,918/-  and under  Ag.Sc.No.116 for  Rs.452/- which  are jointly consuming by the complainant till date  inspite of receipt of demand notices from the APSPDCL.

           The complainant has  to prove how he is entitled  for compensation for Rs.1,50,000/- with interest   at 24% p.a.  from the date of complaint till realization.  On behalf  of the opposite parties 1 to 3 no specific dereliction, deficiency in service held to the complainant in any point of time.  The complainant did not sustain any loss or damage from the opposite parties 1 to 3.

               The opposite parties 1 to 3 submitted that  the complainant  did not furnish any documentary  proof as to loss of his crop for Rs.2,00,000/-  and Rs.38,000/- for motor repairs   to the complainant.  The burden of proof lies on the complainant to show on which   date and in  which year his crop was damaged.  The complainant willfully failed to file documentary proof s to cultivating 10 acres of Agricultural  and subject to proof  and  relevancy.  Except oral words no documentary evidence placed before this Forum. The complainant if  sustained any loss, damage and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 no legal notice was issued   to the  opposite parties 1 to 3 prior to institution of PLC No.296/2014, O.S.No.68/2015  and  this case.  It  shows it is willful creation for this case only.  As  attributed in this case the complainant as a consumer of APSPDCL  did not sustain any loss of crop for Rs.2,00,000/- and no Rs.38,000/- spent for motor repairs and submits for dismissal of complainant  with costs.

 

4.    On behalf of  complainant, no evidence  was adduced and no documents were marked.

5.     On behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3, R.Ws.1 to 3  examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

6.    No written arguments  was filed. on behalf of  complainant.

7.    On behalf of  the opposite parties 1 to 3 written arguments filed.

8.    Perused  the written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 3.

9.    Complainant was absent continuously  and as there is no representation, it is treated that the complainant side of arguments heard.

 

10.   Now the points for consideration are:

          (1)Whether  the complaint  filed by the  complainant under Section-12 of

               Consumer Protection Act, 1986  against  the opposite parties 1 to 3 is

               maintainable.

          (2)  To what relief, the  complainant is entitled?

 

           11.  POINT No.1:  The case of the  complainant is that he is having Ac.10.00 of  agriculture land at Balasamudram Village of Venkatagiri Mandal and there are two service connections   bearing No.4 and 116 and the opposite parties  in order to cause loss  and  damage to the complainant, they intend to give service connection to others and  his service connection was given to  others, the  electricity power will  not be supplied to the complainant  regularly and there will be deficiency of supply  of energy to the transformer,  under which the service connection of the complainant was  allotted  and inspite of  several times though the complainant requested the opposite parties  but they did not  heed the says  of the complainant   and   hence the complainant was forced to  file this complaint against   the opposite parties  and submits  to allow  the complaint with costs.

            The learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 submits  by  relying upon  written arguments and  decisions reported in 

	Travancore Oxygen Limited Vs. Kerala State electricity Board reported in I (1997) CPJ 17 (NC) before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi,
	M/s.Geeta Pump (Private) Limited, Vs.  District Judge, Saharanpur and others reported in AIR  2000, Allahabad – 58

 

            that the complainant cannot  claim any right with regard to  laying of electrical line  and he further submits that as the complainant failed to adduce evidence  and as no convincing evidence was placed before this Forum,  he submits that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable and submits that the dismissal of the complaint and he further  submits  by relying upon  Exs.B4 and B5 that  V. Jagannadham and V. Chenchukrishnaiah are due  to the opposite parties  1 to 3   and  hence  the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and submits   for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

            By relying upon the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for opposite parties and as seen from the records, the complainant did not adduce any evidence  in support of his version.  In the absence of any such evidence, the averments in the complaint by themselves cannot be accepted without any evidence in

 

Rangannagiri  Yadavareddy Vs. Dr. Vijaya Kumari reported in 2001 (2) CPJ 391.

          Wherein   it is held s follows:  “Averments in  complaint by themselves cannot be accepted without evidence.”  

           By relying upon the above decision, the facts of the case  as the complainant failed to adduce  evidence in support of his version,  we are of the opinion that the averments in complaint by themselves cannot be accepted without evidence.

           Further, the complainant  filed complaint against   the opposite parties 1 to 3 seeking direction to erect  a new  transformer with two services and new aluminium wires to the service connection of the complainant i.e., service connection Nos.4 and  116.  The complainant cannot direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to erect any transformer and he cannot interfere  with the statutory functions of the  opposite parties in

M/s.  Geeta Pump (Private) Limited Vs.  District Judge, Saharanpur and others reported in AIR  2000, Allahabad, 58.

 

          Where in Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held that under Electricity Act and  Electricity (Supply) Act, Consumer cannot  claim any right  with regard to   laying of line i.e., source of  supply of electricity for  effecting connection of consumer. 

 

          By relying upon the above decisions, we are of the opinion  that the complainant cannot  direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to erect  new transformer  and to give connections.

 

            Further  as seen from   Exs.B4 and B5 V. Jagannadham has to pay a sum of Rs.1,732/- and V. Chenchukrishnaiah has to pay a sum of Rs.977/-.  Following  the decisions  reported in

 

	Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited  Vs.  DVS Steels and Alloys Private  Limited, AIR 2009 S.C.647 = 2009 (1) SCC 210 and in
	Malee  Horticulture Private  Limited Vs. Chairman M.S.E.B. III (2003) CPJ 81 (NC)

              Wherein  the Hon’ble Apex court and Hon’ble National Commission held  that when the complainant has to pay the arrears of electricity bill is not entitled for any relief  against  the  electricity  department.

              Further as seen from the averments of the complaint, the complainant submits that  as the complainant failed to supply the  electricity  properly, the crops  raised by the complainant was damaged  and no proper crop was raised in his land and submits to award compensation of  Rs.2,38,000/-  towards   the lands of the  crop.  But to prove that  the complainant raised crop in his land and due to the non supply of power, crop  for the   crop raised by him was damaged, the complainant did not adduce any evidence in support of his  claim in

Travancore Oxygen Limited Vs. Kerala State electricity Board reported in I (1997) CPJ 17 (NC) before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi

                 Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that when the complainant claimed agricultural  loss or damage due to  defective electricity supply and when the complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove  about the said   fact, there is no deficiency of service and as  there  is no willful  action, the opposite parties  1 to 3 are  not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

 

                By relying upon the above decisions and as there is no evidence  to prove about the damages  as stated by the complainant,  we are of the opinion  that the complaint filed by the complainant for damages is also not maintainable.

 

                By relying upon the above decisions and discussion made above, we are of the  opinion that the complainant failed to prove  his case  with  convincing  and as  there is no deficiency of service,  we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable and the same  has to be dismissed.

 

                  In view of the above  said discussion, we answer  this point against  the complainant.

 

          12.   POINT No.2:In view of our answering on point No.1 against  the  complainant and in favour of the opposite parties 1 to 3, the complaint filed by the complainant against  the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable and the  same has to be dismissed.

               In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances, no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  20^th day of  SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

 

            Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

-Nil-

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

R.W.1  -	09-11-2015	Sri Nenavathi Hanuma Naik, S/o.Seva Naik, Working as the Assistant Electrical Engineer (AEE) at  Venkatagiriin APSPDCL, SPSR Nellore District. (Chief affidavitfiled).
R.W.2  -	09-11-2015	Sri Yeturi Srinivasulu, S/o.Raghavulu, Working as the Assistant  Divisional Electrical Engineer (ADEE)  at Venkatagiri in APSPDCL, SPSR Nellore District (Chief affidavit filed).
R.W.3  -	09-11-2015	Sri Pasupuleti Vijay Kumar, S/o.Subbaiah, Working  as the Lineman at Venkatagiri Town (Urban) in APSPDCL, SPSR Nellore District. (Chief  affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

-Nil-

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	-	Certified copy of  From No.8, Registered Address filed under Order 6 Rule 14 (a)CPC Plain filed on behalf plaintiff under order VII Rule-1 & Section-26 of CPC in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri in O.S.No.68/2015.
Ex.B2  -	-	Certified copy of  petition filed on behalf of  petitioner / plaintiff under Order -  39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section-151 of C.P.C. in I.A.No.76/2015 in O.S.no.68/2015 and docket orders thereon and affidavit in O.S.No.68/2015 in the Court  of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri.
Ex.B3  -	-	Certified copy of Written Statement  filed under Order VIIII rule 1of CPC on behalf of the defendants No. 2   to 4  in O.S.No.68/2015 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri.
Ex.B4  -	-	Certified copy of  Bill  dated 01-12-2013 in the name of  V. Jaganandhan in U.S.C.No.3621304000004.
Ex.B5  -	-	Certified copy of  Bill  dated 01-12-2013 in the name of  V. Chenchu Krishnaiah  in U.S.C.No.3621304000116.
Ex.B6  -	-	Certified copy of  Written Statement filed under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C.  on behalf of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.68/2015 in the Court of the Junior  Civil Judge, Venkatagiri.

                                                                                                         Id/-

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri U. Armugon, Advocate, Venkatagiri.
2.	Sri Penubaku Venu, Advocate, Venkatagiri Town, SPSR Nellore    District-524 132.

 

Date when free copy was issued: