Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/57/2012

Jupudi Ashok Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd., Rep. by Superintendent Engineer, - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Subba Rao

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                                     Date of filing:   09.11.2012

                                                                                                Date of Order: 10.12.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

          PRESENT:   Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L.,  .. President (FAC)

                   Sri S.Bhaskar Rao, M.A., B.L., D.P.M.,    .. Member

                               

                                               Thursday, the 10^th day of December, 2015

 

C.C.No.57 /2012

Between:-

 

1)  Jupudy Ashok Babu, S/o. Venkateswararao,

      Hindu, aged 49 years, D.No.7-8-5/4 & 6,

      Bandaruvari Street, Rajahmundry.

 

2)  Smt. Jupudy Madhavi, W/o. Ashok Babu,

      Hindu, aged 43 years, Inamdarini,

      D.No.7-8-5/4 & 6, Bandaruvari Street,

      Rajahmundry.                                                                                                   ….       Complainants

 

                                    And

 

1)  Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd.,

     Rep. by Superintendent Engineer, Rajahmundry.

 

2)  Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P., Ltd.,

      Rep. by Divisional Engineer (Operation),

      Rajahmundry.

 

3)  Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.,

     Rep. by Asst. Divisional Engineer, Rajahmundry.                                                 ….       Opposite parties

 

         

            This case coming on 04.12.2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri M. Siva Subba Rao, Advocate for the complainants and Sri J.V. Subba Rao, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, President (FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainants U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for deficiency of service on their part; to restore supply of electricity to service connection Nos.1432011101086595; 1432011101087006; 1432011101086261 and 1432011101082895 of Rajahmundry and costs.

2.         The complainants submit that they are owners of the building bearing Door No.7-18-5/4 & 6, Bandaruvari Street, Rajahmundry.  They obtained service connections i.e. 086595, 087006, 086261 and 082895 to their building by depositing money with the opposite parties and obtained by above separate service connections for the purpose of supply of electricity to different tenants in their building.  They also obtained other service connection bearing No.087006 for running of a reputed educational institute. The opposite parties after collecting the application for arranging supply of electricity under the above said service connections and inspected the building and after satisfied and they gave service connections. The complainants have promptly and regularly paid all the electricity consumption charges as per the bills. The opposite parties have no manner of right to disconnect the service connections.  On 8.11.2012, the opposite parties highhandedly entered into the building of the complainant and disconnect the supply of electricity to the said service connections.  Such act of the opposite parties is highly illegal and constitutes deficiency of service. Hence, the compalaint.  

3.         The 3^rd opposite party filed its written version and the same was adopted by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and denied all the allegations made by the complainant. This opposite party submits that it is learnt that the complainants having obtained permission from Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry for construction of residential building with ground floor (partly for parking) and 3 floors super imposed on the same under proceedings dt.27.12.2007 with certain stipulations. It would appear that the complainants have made constructions in deviation of her sanctioned plan with reference to setbacks, besides conversions the residential building into that of a commercial one though the same is situated in residential zone and that the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation after issuing notices under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act followed by another notice under Section 656 of the Act and removed some of violated portions. It would further appear that the Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation did not issue occupancy certificate and inspite of the same, the complainant let out the building to Corporation Bank and Bhashyam School for their commercial activities and the building supervisors of Town Planning Department to bring it to the notice of the Municipal Commissioner about irregularities and with this back ground a complaint was made by a Citizen residing nearby, to Hon’ble Lok Ayuktha, Hyderabad and the Lok Ayuktha by his proceedings dt.9.8.2012 in complaint No.3047/2011/B.1 directed the Municipal Commissioner, Rajahmundry to see that power and water supplies shall not be provided to the building in questions as long as the complainant did not obtain occupancy certificate from the corporation and further directed to comply with the directions submit a report by 16.11.2012. It is further submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry in compliance with the directions by this proceedings dt.11.10.2012 required this opposite party to disconnect the power supply the building of the complainants and to carry out the same, this opposite party issued notices to the complainants and when they refused to receive the notices pasted the same and disconnected the supply on 7.11.2012 to different connections existing the said building. This opposite party submits that the complainants suppressing the above material facts filed the complaint and obtained exparte orders of reconnection. This opposite party submits that it is only to carry out the directions of Lok Ayuktha issued to the Municipal Corporation and in turn to comply with the requirement of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation, this opposite party effected disconnection and not for any other reason. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.    

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the 1^st complainant and Exs.A1 to A8 have been marked. The 3^rd opposite party filed proof affidavit and Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

   1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

       

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:   As per the available record, the complainants herein renovated their residential building bearing Door Nos.7-18-5/4 and 6, Bandaruvari Street, Rajahmundry during the year 2007 vide Ex.A8 approved plan by the municipal authorities. The complainants used to pay all the electricity bills raised by the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. vide Ex.A1, A2 & A3, but during August, 2012, the Municipal Corporation authorities, Rajahmundry threatened to demolish some portions of the above said building and removed some extended balconies etc.  On that, the complainants filed a suit vide O.S.No.558/12 before the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge Court, Rajahmundry against the Municipal Corporation and obtained injunction order in I.A. NO.208/12 dt.27.8.2012 against demolition vide Ex.A4 = Ex.A7 order.

         The four electricity service connections vide Nos.1432011101086595; 1432011101087006; 1432011101086261 and 1432011 101082895 which were obtained after inspection by the opposite parties and depositing huge amounts with the opposite parties. There is no misconduct or malpractices in maintenance of electrical equipment etc. in the building or utilizing the same. But, the opposite parties disconnected the supply of electricity to all the service connections highhandedly without explaining the reasons, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

As per the written statement under Ex.A6 filed by the Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry vide IA 208/12 in OS 558/12, in which it was mentioned in July, 2011, the officers of the Municipal Corporation suggested that the present complainants violated building rules and regulations in the matter of construction of the building by not leaving the sufficient spaces left at plaint schedule premises. The Municipal corporation served notices to the complainants herein under Sections 440, 441 & 452 of HMC Act on 20.7.2011. Further, the Municipal corporation stated that one T. Sainath of Vullithota, Rajahmundry lodged a complaint with institution of Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha, Hyderabad vide complaint No.3047/2011 against the plaint schedule building and the Hon’ble A.P. Lokayuktha pleased to summon this Municipal Corporation to file its report by 24.4.2012. The complaint was with regard to unauthorized construction and the violations made by the plaintiffs/the present complainants and about letting out of the premises without obtaining NOC from the municipal authorities. The Hon’ble Lokayuktha pleased to pass a detailed order dt.9.8.2012 regarding the plaint schedule building on the complaint lodged by T. Sainath.

The present opposite parties A.P.E.P.D.C.L. authorities received letter in Roc.No.1097/2012-G1 dt.1.10.2012 from the Commissioner, Municipal corporation, Rajahmundry informing that the said door number building was constructed in violation and deviation of building rules. The Hon’ble Lokayuktha in reference Lr.Dis.No.3047/2011/B1/ Lok/2012 dt.27.8.2012 directed the Municipal Commissioner to see that power and water supplies shall not be provided to the building in question as long as the builder did not obtain occupancy certificate from the corporation vide Ex.B1 letter and order copy of Lokayuktha. On that, the 3^rd opposite party issued registered notice to the complainants herein on 7.11.2012 in Lr.No.ADE/O/Town-1/RJY/FDOC/HC/D.No.1945/12/dt.7.11.2012 under Ex.B2. The Ex.B2 notice of the 1^st complainant was affixed on the wall of the building in the presence of municipal officials as the 1^st complainant refused to take delivery of the notice. The notice to the 2^nd complainant was returned unserved under Ex.B3 and as the notices were refused, the opposite parties disconnected the supply on 7.11.2012

            We observed that the opposite parties APEPDCL authorities disconnected all the above said electricity service connections to the building of the complainants in dispute as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Lokayuktha to the Municipal Corporation only as the complainants violated the building rules and regulations of the Municipal Corporation, when a complaint was preferred by a third party in this regard. We cannot find any fault or malafide intention on the part of the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. authorities in disconnecting the power supply to the said building.  

With the above said discussion and under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to fasten any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainants are not entitled for any compensation from the opposite parties.  

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  Each party shall bear their respective costs.

 

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 10^th day of December, 2015.

    

                 Sd/-xxx                                                                                       Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANTS: None.                                      FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANTS:

 

Ex.A1    Latest electricity bills relating to all 5 service connections.

Ex.A2    copy of electricity bills and Receipts.

Ex.A3    Receipts.

Ex.A4    C.C. of I.A.208/12 in O.S.558/12 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

             Rajahmundry together with orders.

Ex.A5    Order copy of Lokayukta.

Ex.A6    Pleading in O.S. No.558/2012 on the file of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

              Rajahmundry.

Ex.A7    Order copy of I.A. 208/12 in O.S.558/12.

Ex.A8    Approved plan copy issued by Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry in the         

             year 2007.    

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-  

 

Ex.B1    Letter dt.11.10.2012 of Municipal Commissioner, Rajahmundry addressed to the    

              3^rd opposite party along with the proceedings of Deputy Registrar, Hon’ble A.P. Lok

              Ayukta, Hyderabad.

Ex.B2    Office copy of Regd. letter dt.7.11.2012 with endorsement of affixture of the same

              to the building.

Ex.B3    Office copy of Regd. notice dt.7.11.2012 and the returned regd. cover.

 

                   Sd/-xxx                                                                                   Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)