This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Ch.Chandra Sekhar Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri I.Suresh,  Advocate for O.P. and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to restore the supply of electricity service connection bearing No.600 and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs on the following averments:

          The complainant is living with her family members in Cheepurupalli and is having electrical service connection bearing No.600 to their house.  The said connection stands in the name of Rajendra Prasad Sahu who is the elder brother of complainant’s husband.  The complainant is using the said service connection by paying electricity consumption charges regularly.  On 8.7.2012 the O.Ps. disconnected the electrical supply to her house without prior notice and intimation to her.  Since the complainant was not in due any amount towards the consumption of electricity she was surprised and was shocked by the high handed action of the O.Ps.  The complainant approached the O.P. many a time and made a request to restore the supply of electricity to her house but of no avail.  The husband of complainant has undergone by-pass surgery and as the supply of power to their house was disconnected, they are facing inconvenience and as the children of complainant were also not able to study for lack of current it causes much pain to them.  Since there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. and their men and as the complainant and her family members were put to inconvenience they suffered mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

          The 2^nd O.P. filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that service connection bearing No.600 is disconnected along with so many service connections in the area when the road widening programme was started by the R and B department.  The R and B department has also issued letter and other proceedings to disconnect the electrical service connections in that area.

          It is averred that the complainant is not at all a consumer and is not having any electrical connection in her name and as the complainant did not comply with requests as specified by the department for restoration of electrical connection and as there are latches on the part of complainant for not complying the requirements of the O.Ps. the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  There were exchange of notices in between the consumer by name Rajendra Prasad and the Managing Director, RECS wherein it is categorically mentioned to comply with the requirements such as construction of pacca building and proper protection to the metering equipments and such similar other mandatory requirements for safety to the persons living in the premises but Rajendra Prasad did not comply the said requirements and got filed the complaint through the complainant.  It is averred that in order to extend the electrical connection as per the rules and guidelines there should be pacca construction and also proper protection to the main service connection and as there is no pacca construction and no proper protection was made by the complainant and as the service connection is exposed and is open there is every possibility of there being any kind of damages likely to be caused to the third parties.  It is averred that as per orders of the Honourable Forum made in I.A.2 of 2013 the temporary service connection is extended and since then the complainant did not do anything in the matter taking advantage of interim order obtained by her.

          It is averred that the complainant has approached the Forum with false and untenable averments and by suppressing the true and correct facts and as such is not entitled to get any relief and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          To substantiate the complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of P.W1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.4 are marked.  On behalf of respondents the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed.  Both the parties have filed their respective brief written arguments and their counsel also submitted oral arguments.

          Perused the material placed on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:- Basing on the evidence available on record the learned advocate for complainant has contended that the complainant is regular in paying electrical charges and the respondents having no just cause have disconnected the supply of power and as there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps  the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.  As against the above said contention the learned advocate for O.ps. has contended that as there was road widening activity the service connection of the complainant as well as many other electrical connections in the area were disconnected and after the complainant obtained interim orders passed by the Forum they have restored the service connection of the complainant and as there is no deficiency in service in the part of their men the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

          We would like to mention the admitted facts in this case. In the counter filed by 2^nd O.P. it is averred that service connection bearing No.600 is disconnected along with so many other electrical service connections in the area when the road widening process was started.  The controversy in between the parties is that the O.Ps. have disconnected electricity supply without any prior notice or intimation to the complainant and though the complainant approached the O.P. many a time and requested to restore the electricity the O.Ps. did not pay any heed to her request.

          The 2^nd O.P. has taken a plea that the complainant is not a consumer and is not having electrical connection in her name and there were exchange of notices in between the actual consumer by name Rajendra Prasad and the Managing Director, Rural Electrical Co.operative Society wherein the consumer was asked to make pacca construction for proper protection of the metering equipments and to follow other mandatory requirements for the safety of the complainant and others.

          As seen from Ex.A.1 to A.4 receipts one Rajendra Prasad is shown to be the consumer of service connection No.600.  It is not the case of O.Ps. that the complainant and her other family members are not residing in the premises having the service connection bearing No.600.  As per complainant’s relationship Rajendra Prasad is not a stranger and as he is the elder person of the family the service connection was taken on his name.

As per Sec.2 (d) Consumer Protection Act

“Consumer” is defined as any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration………..

          In view of the above said definition it is clear that not only the person who purchases any goods or avails service but also includes the user of such goods is defined as consumer.  Since the complainant herein resides in the premises having service connection bearing No.600 along with the other family members, she gets every right to file a complaint against the O.Ps. as the service connection was disconnected.  Though the O.P. has taken a plea that there were exchange of notices in between the Rajendra Prasad and Managing Director, RECS, wherein the consumer was asked to make construction of pacca building for the proper protection to the metering equipments they did not file any copies of notice that were sent to Rajendra Prasad in this regard.  The complainant herein filed I.A.2/2013 seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to restore service and as the said I.A. was allowed, a temporary service connection was given to the premises of the complainant.  The main grievance of the O.Ps. is that the complainant did not have pacca building to have proper protection to the metering equipments.   But as seen from the photographs filed into court the complainant made pacca construction enabling the O.Ps. to give permanent connection to their house.   Hence we are of the considered opinion that there would not be any problem to the O.Ps. to give permanent service connection to the house of complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the O.Ps. to treat the temporary service connection given to the house of complainant as permanent service connection.  Accordingly, this complaint is partly allowed without costs.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 8^th day of July, 2014.

Member                                                           President

CC. 8 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                              

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Receipt No.425 by O.P. for Rs.146/-
2. Ex.A.2 Receipt No.425 by O.P. for Rs.80/-
3. Ex.A.3 Receipt No.425 by O.P. for Rs.125/-
4. Ex.A.4 Receipt No.425 dt.1-12-12 by O.P. for Rs.277/-

For O.P:- NILPresident