Addl. Asst. Engineer, Operations, Section, A.P. Transco, N.P.D.C.L., Bhadrachalam, Khammam and another Superintending Engineer, A.P. Transco
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM Dated this, the 23rd day of April, 2010 CORAM: 1. Sri Vijay Kumar, B.Com., LL.B., President 2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member 3. Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B., Member C.C.No.52 of 2009 Between: Pilaka Lakshmana Reddy, s/o.Narayana Reddy, age: 46 yeas, occu: Welder, r/o.Plot o.12, Industrial Area, Bhadrachalam town, Khammam District. Complainant and 1. Addl.Assistant Engineer, Operation, Section A.P.Transco, NPDCL, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 2. Superintendent Engineer, A.P.Transco, Khammam. Opposite parties. This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.V.N.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments; this Forum passed the following ORDER (Per Sri.R.Kiran Kumar, Member) 1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a welder by profession and after death of his father Palika Narayana Reddy, he desired to start welding shop separately in plot No.12, Industrial Area at Bhadrachalam and he applied for electricity connection to the opposite parties and also paid Rs.3,250/- towards connection charges. Opposite parties have also issued a receipt bearing No.565, dt.4-11-2008, complainant submitted all necessary documents as required by the opposite parties for providing the connection, the officials of opposite party No.1 have visited and inspected the shop of complainant, having satisfied and endorsed the same on the documents submitted by the complainant, assured to install meter in the shop of complainant within two days, later the complainant made several rounds to the opposite party No.1 and they have been postponing the installation of the meter to the shop. After lapse of four months, on 20-3-2009 opposite party No.1 addressed a letter stating that the application of the complainant is rejected, as there was land problem. The complainant further contended that opposite party No.1 rejected the application illegally and without any basis, he made rounds to the opposite parties office for about four months, for that he not only suffered loss of business and also subjected to mental agony. Vexed with the attitude of the opposite party No.1, he addressed a letter to Sakshi newspaper, on their advise he approached the Forum for redressal. 2. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed their counter. As per their counter, after receiving application from the complainant, opposite parties transmitted the same to the field staff for verification on 5-11-2008, the field staff visited the plot No.12 of industrial area, Bhadrachalam and confirmed that the plot No.12 existing in the name of Sri.P.Narayana Reddy, who expired and there is a dispute between family members P.Sitha Rathnam wife of late P.Narayana Reddy made a representation to the opposite parties stating that the complainant is not only son to late Narayana Reddy, there are three other sons who are fighting for the right of the above property, hence the electrical service connection cannot be released in the name of complainant, as such, the application of the complainant was rejected and the same fact was intimated to him on 20-3-2009. The opposite parties also contended that the complainant is not at all a consumer of APNPDCL, because APNPDCL did not release service connection with his name, as such the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer. The complainant approached the Forum and claimed compensation intentionally, without approaching the concerned section officer, or any higher authority. That on 9-10-2009 the complainant himself approached the opposite parties and submitted all the necessary documents to prove that the property transferred in his name through will after the death of his mother and also he submitted no objection certificate from his brothers, as all the necessary documents received from the complainant, the opposite parties released the service connection on 10-10-2009 with the service No.17230 under category II. As such they opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. On behalf of the complainant, the following documents have been filed and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of application, dt.4-11-2008 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of Receipt No.565, dt.4-11-2008 for Rs.3250/-. Ex.A.3 - Letter No.AAE/AA/Bhadrachalam/D.No.390/08/09, dt.20-3-2009 issued by opposite party No.1, rejecting the application of complainant. Ex.A.4 - Sakshi Paper publication, dt.24-3-2009 Ex.A.5 - Copy of death certificate of P.Narayana Reddy issued by Municipality, Bhadrachalam along with endorsement of opposite party No.1 on the 2nd page. 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, the following documents have been filed and the same were marked as Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1 - Representation submitted by Mother and Brothers of the complainant, dt.6-11-2008. Ex.B.2 - No objection letter executed by brothers of the complainant, for issuance of electric service connection in favour of complainant, dt.20-8-2009. Ex.B.3 - Representation submitted by complainant, dt.9-9-2009 for sanction of service connection. 5. On behalf of the complainant, counsel for complainant filed written arguments. On behalf of the opposite parties, submitted oral arguments. 6. On perusal of documents filed by both the parties, now the point that arose for consideration is, Whether the complaint is maintainable or not? Point: 7. In this case the complainant is a welder by profession, intended to start welding shop in shop No.12, industrial area at Bhadrachalam, for that he applied for electricity service connection to the opposite parties, he paid an amount of Rs.3,250/-, at Consumer Centre, Bhadrachalam on 4-11-2008. On receipt of application from the complainant, the opposite parties transmitted the same to the field staff for verification on 5-11-2008. At the time of verification by the field staff of opposite parties, they confirmed that the plot No.12 existing in the name of P.Narayana Reddy, who is the father of complainant and he was expired and there is a dispute between the family members for that plot. The mother of the complainant P.Sita Rathnam and three brothers made a representation to the opposite parties not to release service connection in the name of the complainant. On receipt of representation, the opposite parties rejected the application of the complainant and informed to him on 20-3-2009. 8. In fact the complainant did not have all the necessary documents by the time of application i.e. on 4-11-2008. The opposite parties rightly rejected the application of the complainant on 20-3-2009. Basing on the representation made by mother and brothers of the complainant. 9. As on 9-10-2009 the complainant approached the opposite parties and submitted all the necessary documents to prove that the property transferred in his name through will and also he submitted no objection certificate from his brothers. As all the necessary documents received by the opposite parties from the complainant, they released the service connection on 10-10-2009 with the S.C.No.17230 under category II. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 23rd day of April, 2010. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMRES FORUM, KHAMMAM APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined for complainant: -None- Witnesses examined for opposite parties: -None- Exhibits marked for complainant: Ex.A.1 - Xerox copy of application, dt.4-11-2008 Ex.A.2 - Xerox copy of Receipt No.565, dt.4-11-2008 for Rs.3250/-. Ex.A.3 - Letter No.AAE/AA/Bhadrachalam/D.No.390/08/09, dt.20-3-2009 issued by opposite party No.1, rejecting the application of complainant. Ex.A.4 - Sakshi Paper publication, dt.24-3-2009 Ex.A.5 - Copy of death certificate of P.Narayana Reddy issued by Municipality, Bhadrachalam along with endorsement of opposite party No.1 on the 2nd page. Exhibits marked for opposite parties: Ex.B.1 - Representation submitted by Mother and Brothers of the complainant, dt.6-11-2008. Ex.B.2 - No objection letter executed by brothers of the complainant, for issuance of electric service connection in favour of complainant, dt.20-8-2009. Ex.B.3 - Representation submitted by complainant, dt.9-9-2009 for sanction of service connection. PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMRES FORUM, KHAMMAM
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
