BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present:Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri G.Sreenivas Rao,M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR), Male Member
Wednesday, the 20th day of April, 2011
CC. No. 54 of 2010
Between:
Smt. Kyatham Padma W/o K. Prabhakar Reddy,
R/o H.No. 2-80, Bandarupally (V), Age: 24 years,
Thoguta Mandal – Medak District. … Complainant
And
- Balaiah, Lineman, A.P.C.P.D.C.L.,
Sub Station Thoguta, Mandal Thoguta,
Dist. Medak.
- Asst. Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L.,
Thoguta Mandal – Dist. Medak.
- The Superintending Engineers,
A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Medak at Sangareddy ….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 07.04.2011 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri Anantha Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite parties, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to sanction electricity supply connection to the house of the complainant bearing H.No. 2-80, Bandarupally village, Thoguta Mandal, Medak District and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for deficiency of service.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant purchased a house site from Chigurupally Isthari in Bandarupally village and applied for electricity connection and paid Rs. 125/- to opposite party No. 1 and then started construction of the house. After the completion of the construction, H. NO. 2-80 is allotted by the panchayat but the opposite party neither sanctioned electricity supply connection nor returned the deposited amount of Rs. 125/-. The complainant regularly approached the opposite party for sanction of electricity connection but there is no response. Finally on 03.10.2008 the complainant got a notice issued to the opposite parties and they were served with the notice. Opposite party No. 1 orally replied that there was due, on the said plot. The complainant got two more notices issued on 15.10.2009 and 02.03.2010 and they were served on the opposite parties but there is no reply. The complainant has been suffering for want of electricity lights in the house on, occasions and festivals. Hence the complaint.
2. The opposite parties resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a counter of opposite party No. 2.
The averments in the counter in brief are as follows:
The complainant has not submitted any application, but her husband K. Prabhakar Reddy submitted an application on 14.05.2008 in customer service center at Thoguta along with a demand draft for Rs. 125/- for a new connection for domestic use. The said application was sent to concerned section office and on receipt of the same the lineman concerned was instructed to inspect the premises where the supply is required and enquire. During his enquiry it is revealed that there was an old house in the name of Sri Isthari with electricity connection bearing S.C.No. 98, that house was demolished and the complainant constructed a new house in its place. The enquiry also revealed that Rs.11345/- is pending against S.C. NO. 98. When Sri Isthari was asked to pay the due amount of Rs.11,345/- towards C.C. charges against S.C. No. 98, it is stated that he sold the said house to Smt. Sugunavva, who is mother of complainant, about 24 years ago and he is in no way concerned with the dues. He gave a representation also to opposite party No. 2 to that effect. The said Sugunavva, the complainant and are husband have been staying in the same house i.e., H. No. 2-80, which is constructed in the place of the old house which was purchased from Sri Isthari and enjoyed the electricity supply for years together without paying the CC charges due against S.C. No. 98 and later demolished the house, which became old and destructed the existing meter and applied for new connection without paying the dues. Knowing all these facts service is not released. No notice was given to the complainant as the service is not in her name. As seen from the proof produced by the applicant, it is contrary to the statement of the complainant that application for new connection was submitted and then started construction work on the plot. Unless house is completed number will not be allotted by Grampanchayat. The complainant false statement and misleading the forum. The applicant Prabhakar Reddy submitted copy of ration card, wherein his father's name is written as Rangam Narayana Reddy. Surnames of the father and son are different. For all the above reasons the application was rejected and the same was informed to him. The allegation that even after receipt of the amount, connection is not given is not admitted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to claim any damages. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the averments in the pleadings the complainant has filed a memo to treat her complaint as her evidence affidavit and arguments on her behalf. Evidence affidavit of Assistant Divisional Engineer is filed on behalf of opposite parties. Exs. A1 to A9 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked for the opposite parties. Counsel for opposite parties filed a memo to treat the counter as written arguments and oral arguments. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for a direction to the opposite parties to sanction electricity service connection to her house bearing H.No. 2-80 and for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- as prayed for?
Point:
5. The complainant’s case is that she purchased 96 sq. yards of open site and applied for electricity connection to the opposite parties by paying Rs.125/- to opposite party No. 1 and then started constructing the house bearing H.No. 2-80/-. But the opposite parties neither sanctioned the electricity connection nor returned the amount inspite of repeated requests. It is her further case that she got three notices dated 03.10.2008, 15.10.2009 and 02.03.2010 issued to the opposite parties. Even though they are served on the opposite parties, electricity connection is not given. Hence the complaint.
6. Opposite parties denied receipt of application from the complainant for electricity service connection. Their contention is that the complainant's husband applied for connection by paying Rs. 125/- by way of demand draft but their enquiry revealed that service connection is sought to house No. 2-80 which is constructed by demolishing old house of Sri Isthari on the said site and for the said old house there was service connection bearing No. S.C. 98 and against the said service connection Rs. 11345/- was due and when the said Isthari was asked to pay the said due, he said that he sold the said house 24 years ago to Sugunavva who is no other than the mother of the complainant and for all these years the said Sugunavva, complainant and her husband enjoyed electricity by staying in the said old house without paying the dues and now they have constructed new house and applied for a new connection. It is further case of the opposite parties that the applicant i.e the complainant’s husband mentioned his surname as K, but the ration card produced by him shows his father's name Rangam Narayan Reddy and because there is change in the surnames of the father and son, and hence his application was rejected and the same was informed to him and this complaint is filed with false allegations and misleading the forum. The opposite parties therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint.
7. The documents marked on behalf of the complainant are : Ex.A1 is xerox copy of joint patta certificate. Ex.A2 is unregistered sale deed dated. 05.09.1993 executed by Chigurpally Isthari in favour of the complainant in respect of 100 sq. yards of open site (Village in which the site is located is not mentioned). Exs.A3 to A5 are applications of the complainant's husband which were submitted to electricity adalath, Siddipet complaining against opposite party No. 1 and requesting to arrange new meter to his house. Ex.A6 is bunch of three private courier receipts. Ex.A7 is residential certificate issued by Grampanchayat. Ex.A8 is xerox copy of election identity card and Ex.A9 is xerox copy of receipt for payment of Rs.125/- by way of demand draft.
8. The complainant’s case is that she purchased open site measuring 96 sq. yards situated in Bandaru village from Chigurupally Isthari and constructed the house bearing No. 2-80. To prove the purchase she has filed Ex.A2 unregistered sale deed on a non judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 10/-, but Ex. A1 shows that the said site has been assigned to the complainant by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapak vide proceedings No. 3/3622/1995 Therefore Ex.A1is not in support of the contention of the complaint that she purchased the site from Isthari as mentioned an Ex.A2. A reading of the Exs.A3 to A5 shows that the complainant's husband purchased open site and constructed the house by himself. Therefore these contentions are contrary to the contentions made in the complaint, that the complainant purchased the site and contucted house therein.
9. When the case of the complainant is that she applied for electricity service connection (date not mentioned) along with demand draft for Rs. 125/- (draft particulars are also not mentioned in the complaint) and when the opposite parties’ contentions is that complainant has not applied for any electricity connection but her husband has applied and that was rejected and the same was informed to him, the complainant has not produced any proof in support of her contention that she applied for the electricity service connection. In the absence of any proof that she applied for connection, the allegation that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service as they failed to give electricity connection to her house cannot be accepted. In the circumstances the complainant cannot be said to be "consumer" at all as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence there cannot be any consumer dispute for her with the opposite parties. For the foregoing reasons it is held that the complaint has failed to prove that she applied for electricity connection along with a demand draft Rs. 125/- and hence she is not entitled to any relief. The point is answered against the complainant.
10. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 20th day of April, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to: Copy delivered to the Complainant/
- The Complainant Opp.Parties On ___________
- The Opp.parties
- Spare copy
