Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/352/2011

Peddinti Vani Narasamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P.E.P.D.C., Limited - Opp.Party(s)

D.S Rama Raju

30 May 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint:19-9-2011

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:30-05-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

SATURDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.352/2011

 

BETWEEN:

Peddinti Vani Narasamma,

W/o late Umamaheswara Rao,

Hindu, aged 36 years,

presently r/at Saketipuram,

Visakhapatnam.

…Complainant

AND:

1. The Addl. Assistant Engineer,

APEPDCL.,  Operation Section,

NSTL, Near R& B Bus Stop,

•  
• The Divisional Engineer,

APEPDCL., Opeartion Zone-II,

•  
• The Asst. Divisional Engineer,

APEPDCL.,  Lines Sub-Division,

Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 25-05-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of    SRI D.S.RAMA RAJU, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI K.S.SHANKAR, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 TO 3, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1. The complainant filed the present complaint against the OPs to resote her Electrical Connection to her house and Rs.50,000/-  towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards damages with costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she purchased the property in the year 1992 from one Madhu Appala Raju who is a GPA Holder of N.Rama Krishna Raju to an extent of 108.5sq.yds in S.No.73/5 and it wsa registered on 30-09-1992 and since then she has been the absolute owner in question of the said premises and later, she constructed Asbestoes Roofed House and on application and payment of necessary fees, on 25-09-2009, the Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited issued a receipt and arranged meter bearing No. SC No.314085/1714. While so, one Kurre Sudha and her henchmen interefered with her possession and enjoyment, then she gave report  to police who registered a case. 
3. That on 03-10-2009, the 1^st OP came to her house and took away the fuses from Electrical Meter without any intimation after issuing notice stating that they received complaint from Kurre Sudha as owner of the property and after disconnection, the 1^st OP issued  the said notice in collusion with the said Sudha. The said Sudha has no manner of right whatsoever. In spite of giving reply notice and approaching higher authorities, the 1^st OP fell deaf year and did not restore her electrical connection.
4. The 1^st Opposite Party filed counter adopted by 2^nd  and 3^rd Opposite parties, denying all the materal averments of the Petitioner contended that the complainant applied for Domestic Service Connection by producing certified copy of sale deed in her name  executed by Appala Raju dated 28-09-1992 and on verification Service Connection was released on 27-09-2009 on 01-10-2009 Smt.K.Sudha made a representation that the complainant is not having valid document to release the Electrical Service Connection and based on the representation, they have inspected and found that a shed was constructed in the site and the service connection was released in the name of the complainant. Basing on the representations of the said Sudha and the documents produced by the Complainant, found that the complainant purchased the property from Lakkoji Venkata Lakshmi being represented by her GPA Holder, Smt.K.Sudha under Registered Sale Deed bearing No.14-12-2007 which was registered as Document No.26108/97 before the SRO, Visakhapatnam and the recitals of the document show that the schedule mentioned property is vendor’s Sreedhana and obtained A schedule property from P.Parvathi through a registered sale deed bearing Registration no.204/94 and B Schedule mentioned property from V.Narasamma  through a registered sale deed bearing document no.203/94 and both the vendors were represented by their GPA Holder B.Atchuta Ramani.
5. They concluded that Smt.Vani Narasamma has no right over the property since she was sold under Registered Sale Deed through GPA Holder Atchyuta  Ramani. The GPA executed by P.Vani Narasamma in favour of the Smt.Bondada Atchyuta Ramani also Registered as Document No.203/94. Hence, safely concluded Vani Narasamma has no right over Extent of 108.5 sq.yds as the same was already convyed in favour of Lakkoji Venkata Lakhsmi under registered sale deed and hold that K.Sudha is the owner of the property. In these circumstances, they issued a show cause notice to the present consumer for producing her original title deeds within 7 days and later disconnected the service on 03-10-2009.
6. After issuing notice, the complaiant neither gave any suitable reply nor submitted any relevant documents. For these reasons,  there are no grounds or merits in the case of the complaint. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
7. To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, she filed her affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A9. On the otherhand, on behalf of the OPs, they filed their affidavit and no documents are marked.
8. Exhibit A1 is the Extract Copy of Sale Deed dated dated 30-09-1992, Exhibit A2 is the Original Receipt issued by APEPDCL., dated 25-09-2009, Exhibit A3 is the copy of FIR along with complaint dated 24-09-2009, Exhibit A4 is the copy of Chargesheet, dated 20-02-2010, Exhibit A5 is the Original Letter issued by the 1^st OP, dated 03-10-2010, Exhibit A6 is the Office copy of Reply cum explanation issued by the Complainant, Exhibit A7 is the Originals of Postal Receipts, Exhibit A8 is the Original returned cover of the 1^st OP, Exhibit A9 is the Original Acknowledgement of 3^rd OP.
9. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.

10.Heard oral arguments from both sides.

Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11. The case of the complainant is that she purchased the schedule property in the year 1992 from one Madhu Appala Raju who is a GPA Holder of N.Rama Krishnam Raju and the same was registered under sale deed dated 30-09-1992 and she has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment  and thereafter obtained electricity connection by paying necessary fee and she was allotted a meter bearing SC No.314085/1714. whilie so, when one Kurre Sudha interfering her possession, she gave a report and the police after investigation filed charge sheet. While So, on 3-10-2009, the 1^st OP came to her house and took away the fuses and on the same day, issued a notice stating that they received complaint from one Kurre Sudha that she is the owner of the property and in that connection, a show causs notice was issued.
12. The case of the OP is that after receiving compliant from K.Sudha, they have issued show cause notice vide Exhibit A5 calling upon the complainant why her service connection, should not be taken  disconnected as the property does not stand in her name and that since the property was already sold that she become not the owner of the property but obtained service connection with false claim of title. Exhibit A6 is the reply dated 06-10-2009 stated to have been issued by the complainant stating she never sold the property to anyone, moreover, the sale deed dated 10-02-1997 is a created and fabricated one and that K.Sudha is not the owner of the site.
13. In view of the respective contentions of both sides, the relevant documents to be considered  are Exhibit A5 and A6 i.e., show cause notice got issued by the OP to the Complainant and its reply.
14. Exhibit A5 shows that the application made by the complainant for service connection for their site by enclosing certified copies of sale deed dated 28-09-1992 and upon verification, the service connection was released on 27-09-2009 and that the complaint was received by their office from Smt.Kurre Sudha stating that she is the owner of the property having purchased the property under a sale deed from Lakkoji Venakta Lakshmi. Upon verification, it is found that the complainant has sold their property etc., and thereby issued show cause notice. According to OP, they inspected the premises of the complainant and found that a shed was constructed in the site, hence service connection was released in the name of the complainant
15. It is the case of the OP, based on the written representation made by K.Sudha and the documents of certified copies filed by the complainant along with application for service connection, it was found that the complainant purchased the property from one person by name M.Appala Naidu through registered sale deed dated 28-09-1992. The document purchased by K.Sudha  with her representation found that she purchased the property from Lakkoji Venakta Lakshmi being represented by her GPA Holder K.Sudha under the registeired sale deed dated 14-12-2007 and the recitals of the documents shows that the schedule mentioned property is vendor’s sreedhana obtained from P.Parvathi through registered sale deed and B schedule mentioned property from P.Vani Narasamma is the owner through a registered sale deed and both the vendors were presented by their GPA Holder B.Atchyta Ramani. On scruitiny of them they concluded that P.Vani Narasamma over the property since obtained sale deed by her under registered sale deed through her GPA Holder Atchuta Ramanai. GPA executed by Vani Narasamma in favour of Atchuta Ramana also registered as document No.203/94 and thereby concluded that Vani Narasamma has no right over the extent and the same was already conveyed in favour of Lakkoji Venakta Lakshmi under a registered sale deed and thereby concluded that K.Sudha is the owner of the property. It appears to be genuine and further held that the property under registered sale deed again making a claim over the same unless the same is settled by a court of law. In these circusmtnaces, the OP got issued A5 to the present consumer for production of her orgiianl title deeds within 7 days. On receipt of this letter, finally the service connection was released in the name of the Narasamma. It is also the case of the OP that after issuing Exhibit A5, no reply was sent and thereby the service connection of the complainant was disconnected.
16. However, vide Exhibit A6, a reply was sent by Complainant dated 6-10-2009 stating that K.Sudha has no manner of right whatsoever in the schedule mentioned property and the property said to have been sold dated 10-02-1997 is only a created and fabricated in which the said Sudha is only a GPA Hodler and as per the document she is not the owern of the site. She also stated in Exhibit A6; caveat petitions, were lodged on the file of Principal District Judge, Principal Senior Civil Judge and principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam  and finally stated without verifying the documents propertly, her service connection was disconnected. On scruitiny of Exhibit A5 and A6, it appears that the complainant contended that the 1997 document stands in the name of Kurre Sudha is a fabricated one. Therefore, unless which document is genuine, it can not be held who is the absolute owner of the property. Perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that a detailed enquiry is required which can only be decided by a Civil Court but not by this forum. For these reasons, the complaint filed by the complainant in this Forum is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the   30^th day of May, 2015.                                   

 

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT       

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	30-09-1992	Extract copy of sale deed	Photocopy
A2	25-09-2009	Receipt issued by the APEPDCL.,	Original
A3	24-09-2009	FIR along with complaint	Photocopy
A4	20-02-2010	Chargesheet	Photocopy
A5	03-10-2010	Letter issued by the 1st OP	Original
A6	06-10-2010	Reply cum explanation issued by the complainant	Office copy
A7		Postal receipts (3 Nos)	Originals
A8		Returned cover of the 1st OP	Original
A9		Acknowledgements of 3rd OP	Original

 

For the Opposite Parties:-   -nil-

 

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT