BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD(CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)
F.A.No.148/2008 against C.C.No.98/2006, Dist. Forum, West Godavari Dist. , Eluru.
Between:
1.The Divisional Electrical Engineer,
A.P.E.P.D.C.L.Operations, Eluru.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Operations, Electricity Sub Station,
Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District.
3. The Superintendent Engineer,
A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Eluru, W.G.District.
4. The Assistant Accounts Officers,
Electrical Revenue Office, Eluru,
West Godavari District. …Appellants/
Opp.parties
And
Jorige Satyanarayana,
S/o.Venkateswara Rao, aged 33 years,
Occ:Business R/o.Appanaveedu,
Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. … Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.V.Ajay Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent : --
CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
And
SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.98/2006 on the file of Dist. Forum West Godavari Eluru., the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 375 sq.yards of house site from one Y.Krishna Raghavulu. At the time of purchase there was no structure or electrical service connection to the said site. In the year 2003 the complainant constructed asbestos roofed house and obtained electrical service connection with service no.1195 by making application to the 2nd opposite party and paid electrical consumption charges regularly without any default. On 20.6.2006 opposite party no.1 served a notice on the complainant even though it was not addressed to the complainant and was addressed to one K.Anjaneyulu with service no.665 stating that the said K.Anjaneyulu is due an amount of Rs.6,257/- as on 30.4.2002 to the Electricity Department. When the complainant refused to receive the same as it is addressed to one K.Anjaneyulu, the opposite party staff forcibly served on him stating that if the notice is not received the prevailing complainant’s electrical service connection bearing no.1195 will be disconnected. The complainant submits that the said K.Anjaneyulu alienated his property i.e. the above said site in the year 1994 i.e. on 4.6.1994 to one Putti Nancharamma who in turn alienated the same to one Y.Mahesh through a sale deed dt.15.1.97 who in turn sold it to the complainant. So the said Anjaneyulu was in possession of the said property upto the year 1994. As stated in the notice dt.20.6.2006 , by 30.4.2002 the said K.Anjaneyulu is neither in possession of the above said site nor his service connection no.665 was in existence. On 8.8.2006 inspite of repeated requests the staff of second opposite party disconnected his connection no.1195 even though he was not due any amounts to the Electricity Department. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to restore the Electricity Service connection no.1195 and to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- and to pay costs of the complaint.
Opposite parties filed their written version admitting sending of disconnection notice to one K.Anjaneylu with service connection no.665 . Opposite party states that as per condition no.8.4 of billing and payment of general terms and conditions of supply, approved by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission the opposite party is authorized to refuse to supply the electricity to the premises if all the dues to the opposite party company are not paid by the seller of the property. Opposite party further stated that as per the provisions of APSEB (recovery of dues) Act 1984 and APSEB (recovery of dues) rules 1985 published in G.O.Ms.No.50 dt.1.10.1985, the opposite party is competent to issue notice as the dues can be recovered as if the dues were an arrear of the land revenue not with standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument or agreement having the force of law. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A9 allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties not to collect amount under Ex.A1 and the opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards compensation along with costs of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order and collect the electricity consumption charges of complainant’s S.C.No.1195 as usual.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that as seen from Exs.A2 to A9, the complainant is the owner of the premises which he purchased from one Y.Krishna Raghavulu on 7.2.1999 through registered sale deed and obtained electrical connection no.1195. It is the case of the complainant that he was served with a notice on 20.6.2006 forcibly by opposite party staff even though the notice is addressed to one K.Anjaneyulu with service connection no.665. Inspite of repeated requests of the complainant the electricity connection was disconnected on the ground that the complainant’s vendor was due an amount of Rs.6,257/- under S.C.No. 665 as on 30.4.2002 .The learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties submitted that as per condition no.8.4 of billing and payment of General Terms and conditions of supply approved by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, the opposite parties are authorized to refuse supply electricity to the premises if all the dues to the opposite party company are not paid by the seller of the property. The condition no.8.4 of billing and payment of general terms and conditions of supply approved by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission reads as follows:
“Transfer of service connection: The seller of the property should clear all the dues to the Company before selling such property. If the seller did not clear the dues as mentioned above, the company may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connection or refuse to give a new connection to the premises till all the dues to the company are cleared.”
We observe from the record that as per this condition if the consumer did not clear the dues, the company may refuse to supply electricity to the premises through the already existing connection . But in the instant case firstly the notice was served on the complainant when the dues were in the name of one K.Anjaneyulu under Service Connection no.665 and the complainant was given a connection under service connection no.1195 and at that point of time i.e. prior to issuing new connection to the complainant herein the appellants/opposite parties ought to have ascertained whether there were any dues or not. Having given the new connection to the premises, sending notice to the complainant on 20.6.2006 that there were dues in the name of one K.Anjaneyulu as on 30.4.2002 i.e. four years prior to the said date of notice is unsustainable. Having provided a new service connection to existing new premises, the opposite parties, now at this belated stage cannot demand dues belonging to the complainant’s vendor’s vendor. Therefore we are of the considered view that the direction of the District Forum that the opposite parties are not entitled to collect these dues from the complainant is right. However the amount of compensation of Rs.8000/- awarded by the District Forum is excessive and we reduce the same to Rs.2000/- while we confirm the rest of the order of the District Forum .
In the result this appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the District Forum and reducing the compensation awarded from Rs.8,000/- to 2000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd./MEMBER
Sd./MEMBER
Dt.6.4.2010
Pm*
