Between:

1)Bhaikar Manga Raju, S/o late Mitraji Rao, Dr.No.7-2-18, Dharmakarta of Maridamma Peetham and Proprietor of the Sri Raja Rajeswari Bangles and General Stores, Vizianagaram, Residing at D.No.7-2-18, Rangireeju Street, Vizianagaram.

2)Bhaikar Raja Mitraji Anand Kumar, S/o Mangaraju, Proprietor of Raja Rajeswari General Stores, D.No.7-2-18, Rangireeju Street, Vizianagaram.

3)Bhaikar Srinivas Kumar, S/o Mangaraju, Advocate, Dr.No.7-2-18, Rangireeju Street, Vizianagaram.

                                              … Petitioners                                                  

And

1)A.D.E (Town), Operations, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vidyut Bhavan, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

2)Assistant Accounts Officer, E R O(Electrical Revenue Office)Town, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vidyut Bhavan Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

3)A.E (Town), D-1 Section, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Butchenna Koneru, Sub-Station, Vizianagaram.

4)A.Appa Rao, Assistant Accounts Officer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vidyut Bhavan, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

5)The Senior Accounts Officer, Operations Circle, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vidyut Bhavan, Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

6)The Manager, Customer Service Center, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Vizianagaram.

7)The Chairman and Managing  Director, A.P.E.P.D.C.L, Near Gurudwar Junction, Nakkavani Palem, Visakhapatnam.

                              …Opposite Parties/Respondents                         

     This case is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Sree Ram and B.S.Kumar Advocates for the Complainant and Sri P.Venugopal Rao Advocate for the O.P’s No.1 to 7 having stood over for consideration the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

AS PER SRI G.APPALA NAIDU,MEMBER

     This complaint is filed by the Petitioners/Complainants U/s-12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 against the O.P’s 1 to 7 seeking reliefs to pass a decree in favour of the complainants by directing the O.P’s to properly issue electrical demand notice and receipt as mentioned in the test report along with applicants name and full address particulars for the electrical service No.K028-019130 by deleting the existing name, to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/- for the willful and negligent conduct adopted by the O.P’s 1 to 7 not only for causing physical stress and strain and mental agony to the complainants but also gross deficiency in service and gross dereliction of the duties caused by the O.P’s to the complainants, to pay costs of the complaint and to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case on the following averments:-

     The 1^st complainant being the father of complainant’s No.2 and 3, applied for electrical service connection to O.P.No-3 in the year 1987 for his Peetham which is established by his fore-fathers and the said Peetham is popularly called as “Maridamma Peetham” in Rangireeju street of Vizianagaram and accordingly the electrical department allotted electrical service connection bearing no.K028019130 and the test report and the service register clearly shows that the said service connection is allotted in the name of “Temple Durga Bhai PM” (PM stands for Peetham) and the said service connection is still in live till today and the 1^st complainant has been regularly paying the electrical consumption charges in advance without any default.

     While the matters stood that way, the electrical bills for the said service connection used to be issued in the name of the 1^st complainant i.e. B.Mangaraju upto 2007 and thereafter the electrical bills were issued for the said connection in the name of “Ambha Bhavani Temple”.  It is not known as to how and for what reason the name is changed from 1^st complainant i.e. B.Mangaraju to Ambha Bhavani Temple and 1^st complainant never filed any representation to change his name.

     The 1^st complainant addressed a letter on 08.02.2012 to O.P.No-3 stating that electrical bills and the receipts were issued in the name of the 1^st complainant i.e. B.Mangaraju for some time and at another time the same was issued in the name of “Ambha Bhavani Temple” and therefore requested to issue electrical bills and receipts in the correct name i.e. “Temple Durga Bhai Peetham” along with the name of 1^st complainant in the address column of the electrical bills and also in the receipts. In response to the said letter the then O.P. No.3 also issued a letter to O.P. No.2 vide letter dated 08.02.2012 enclosing a copy of the same to the 1^st complainant, to look into the said letter of representation but there is no action from O.P. No.2. Thereafter the 1^st complainant addressed a letter dated 17.03.2012 to O.P. No.6 who issued reply stating that the application is rejected.  Again 1^st complainant submitted a letter to O.P. No.6 on 25.04.2012 along with enclosures of test report and service connection register and also electrical bills asking him to delete “Ambha Bhavani Temple” and to replace the same with “temple Durga Bhai Peetam” with name and full address of 1^st complainant and issue the electrical bills and receipts with correct name as shown in the test report.  On receipt of the said letter the O.P. No.6 put the same in the knowledge of O.P. No.3 vide letter dated 25.04.2012 and the O.P. No.3 inturn put the same in the knowledge of O.P. No.2 vide letter dated 26.04.2012 but there is no response from any one of the opposite parties No.2,3, and 6.

     Complainants also submits that in respect of the said Maridamma Peetham an injunction order were passed in favour of the 1^st complainant and case in crime No.101/12 is also registered as the accused in the said crime broke the lock of the electrical box and have taken control of the same and the person who is coming to take over the consumption billing is handing over the electrical bills to the accused and in this regard the 1^st complainant addressed a letter dated 12.05.2012 to O.P. No.3 by enclosing the injunction order and FIR copies and advance payment receipt for the said electrical meter and requested to issue monthly electrical bills to him only but invain.  After receipt of the aforesaid letter the name is partly changed as “temple Durga Bhai Devi” without mentioning the name of the 1^st complainant in the electrical bills and receipts.  Thereafter, complainants even though issued notice dated 03.07.2012 to hand over the monthly bill of the service connection at the house of the 1^st complainant when the billing man comes for recording the reading of his house service meters and also obtained acknowledgement from O.P’s 1 to 3 but there is no reply nor have they made any correction in the name and address in the electrical bills and receipts.  Even for a letter dated 08.10.2012 and registered on 12.10.2012 to the O.P’s 1,2,6 and 7, the name in the said service connection is only partly corrected as “Temple Durga Bhaikar” but the name of 1^st complainant was not reflected and presently the electrical bills are still issued wrongly as “Temple Durga Bhai devi” and the name and address of 1^st complainant is not at all shown in the address coloumn of the electrical bills. Even for the information sought under R.T.I.Act on 16.07.2013 the O.P. No.2 gave a vague reply dated 03.08.2013 and failed to furnish the required information even in respect of application filed under R.T.Act on 23.08.2013.  But the O.P. No.5 admitted that there are no records available regarding the change of name in the electrical service bills and it is therefore very clear that the O.P. No.2 has been changing the name from time to time as per their convenience since there are no records available in the office.  Therefore there is absolutely no justification on the part of the O.P’s to change the name of the service connection at their whims and fancies and also furnishing wrong information, which is highly objectionable and uncalled for but also it reveals gross dereliction of duties which cannot be spared and tolerated, as it  amounts to gross deficiency of service.  Since the complainants were made to run from pillar to post for the last two years by incurring unnecessary expenditure and other misllaneous expenses besides suffering mental agony, physical hardship, lot of inconvenience including physical and mental strain as the 1^st and 2^nd complainants were doing business and the complainant No.3 is a practicing advocate and they were put to untold suffering, mental agony and hardship.  Hence this complaint.

     Counter filed by the 1^st O.P. and adopted by the O.P. 2,3 and 5 to 7 traversing the material allegations made by the complainants in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainants to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that as per the test report of LT SC No.K028-019130, service connection was released  on 01.01.1988 in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar trust” and represented by Sri B.Manga raju, Rangireeju street, Vizianagaram with a contracted load of 0.36KW under LT category VII. While so, on the representation made by the 1^st complainant for change of name as per the name available in the test report, the then AAO/ERO town, Vizianagaram issued a reply dated 19.12.2012 stating that the LT SC No.K028-019130 was released on 01.01.1988 in the name “temple Durga Bhaikar Trust” represented by Sri B.Manga raju and the same name was being continued and as such there was no need to seek change of name.  Further as could be observed from the test report, it is very clear that the electrical service connection has been “abinitio” in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar trust represented  by sri B.Manga raju” with a contracted load of 0.36KW under L.T.Category VII which stands as it is even as on date, without any further changes whatsoever.  As such, when “test report” is an authentic one a and permanent official record clearly showing that it stands in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar trust  represented by sri B.Manga raju, the question of any further changes being made there to, does not arise and even after that if any further noting of different name by the out sourcing staff is there, it may be treated to have been crept in, only by over sight, which is neither willful nor wanton, thereby the same may not be viewed seriously. But the fact remains that there is no change in the original “Test Report” pertaining to the service connection and it is an official record “in perpetum” stands in favour of the complainants.  It is further pleaded by the respondents that they have been always discharging their duties quite consciously and deligently to the satisfaction of their consumers and they never acted upon adamantly and with disrespect towards the respondents at any time and ever before, thereby the question of paying any amount of damages by the respondents in the above regard does not arise from any nook or corner and in any stretch of imagination whatsoever.  The respondents have also got issued a befitting reply to the notice issued by the complainants.  It is further submitted that in view of all the above, there was no negligence, dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of O.P’s or its staff and hence the O.P’s are not liable to pay anything to the complainants, since there are no merits or  bonafides in the claim of the complainants and also there is  no cause of action for the complainants to claim any compensation against the O.P’s.  Therefore it is prayed that since the complaint filed by the complainants being devoid of any merits is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.

     Exhibits A1 to A27 are marked on behalf of complainant’s and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the O.P’s.

     Heard arguments.  Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows:-

     The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments by reiterating what they have stated in the complaint (Neat Copy), counter, evidence affidavits, and brief written arguments respectively.

     The main contention of the complainant is that the O.P’s have been issuing the electricity bills and receipts in different names from time to time and also not delivering the electricity bills and receipts properly to the address given and hence the complainant’s are getting confused and also being harassed and subjected to discomfort, convenience and mental agony.  Even though the complainant’s submitted representations and letters to the O.P’s an different dates including serving of legal notice, the O.P’s did not correct the bills and receipts incorporating  the correct name and hence there is deficiency of service, dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of O.P’s.

     The main contention raised by the O.P’s in the counter, evidence affidavit and brief written arguments respectively is that as could be observed from the test report, it is very clear that the electrical service connection has been abinitio in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar Trust represented by Sri B.Manga raju” with a contracted load of 0.36KW under L.T.category VII which stands as it is even as on date without any further changes whatsoever.  Hence the question of any further changes being made there to does not arise and if any further noting of different name by the outsourcing staff by over sight is neither willful nor wanton and may not be viewed seriously since the fact remains that there is no change in the original test report pertaining to the service connection as it is an official record stands in favour of the complainant’s.

     Perused the material placed on record and also the oral arguments advanced by both the parties. we are of the considered opinion that since the test report is the base as it is an official record and the O.P’s also admits that the electrical service connection has been in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar Trust represented by Sri B.Manga raju” (service connection No-LTSC-K028019130), as per the test report and the service register and the complainant’s also admits and pleads that the electrical bills and receipts may be issued as per the above and hand over the same to the concerned person, all the electrical bills and receipts shall be issued accordingly without any deviation, which serves the purpose of the complainant’s.

     In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing all the O.P’s 1 to 7 jointly and severally to issue electrical bills and receipts  in the name of “Temple Durga Bhaikar Trust  represented by Sri B.Manga raju” without any deviation and handover/deliver the said bills and receipts to the concerned person representing the aforesaid trust.  The O.P’s are further directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) to the complainant’s which includes Advocate fee of Rs.500/-.(Rupees Five Hundred only)  The order shall be complied within one month from this date.                            

 Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th day of May, 2015.

MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

C.C.No.37 / 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                   For opposite parties:-

PW 1                                   RW1  &  RW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Compainant:-

Ex.A-1 Test Report issued to the 1^st complainant,

   Dt.09.12.1987

Ex.A-2 Test Register of sections.

Ex.A-3 Officer Copy of the Registered notice issued by the

   complainant to the opposite parties, Dt.25.06.2014.

Ex.A-4 Reply get issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A-5 EPDCL copy.

Ex.A-6 EPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-7 APEPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-8 Call centre copy.

Ex.A-9 Call Centre copy.

Ex.A-10 EPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-11 APEPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-12 Legal copy.

Ex.A-13 First Information Report.

Ex.A-14 APEPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-15 EPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-16 Statement Copy.

Ex.A-17 EPDCL copy.

Ex.A-18 Temple Durga Bhaikar copy.

Ex.A-19 Duplicate Bill copy.

Ex.A-20 Legally Most urgent copy.

Ex.A-21 EPDCL Copy.

Ex.A-22 Information Act copy.

Ex.A-23 Information Act copy.

Ex.A-24 EPDCL copy.

Ex.A-25 EPDCL copy.

Ex.A-26 APEPDCL copy.

Ex.A-27 Non Judicial Stamp paper.

For OP’s –NIL-

                                              President