2. The Superintendent Engineer,
A.P.S.P.D.C.L.
Arundelpet, Guntur.
… Opposite Parties
This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 01-03-11 in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Kishore, Advocate for complainant and of Sri N.Kiran Bhanu, Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
O R D E R
PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by complainant with a request to provide electricity supply to the house bearing No.15-14-83/1/A in pursuance of complainant’s application dt.27-04-09 and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and for costs.
2. The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant is a retired teacher aged about 75 years. With his retirement benefits, the complainant purchased a vacant site in the name of his daughter-in-law and thereafter, the complainant himself constructed six portions with asbestos cement sheet roof sheds. The complainant is residing in one portion and remaining five portions are leased out to third parties for residential purpose. The entire house was assessed to tax by Municipal Corporation and the house bearing D.No.15-14-83/1/A is situated at Gandhi Nagar, RTC colony extension, Guntur. Disputes between complainant and his daughter-in-law resulted in filing suits between them. The complainant’s daughter-in-law is residing separately in another house. The complainant has been in possession and enjoyment of house bearing No.15-14-83/1/A and the complainant is the occupier of the premises within the meaning of Sec.43 of Electricity Act. Now the premises has no electricity supply, consequently the complainant and other tenants are suffering allot. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to provide the premises with electricity supply by submitting a duly filled application along with all necessary documents. But the 1st opposite party refused to receive the application itself on the ground that the title deed for the property was not in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent the duly filled application along with documents showing that he is the occupier of premises by registered post with acknowledgement due on 27-04-09 and 1st opposite party acknowledged the same on 28-04-09. But so far the 1st opposite party failed to take any steps to provide electricity supply to the house.
As per Section 43 of Electricity Act the opposite parties are bound to supply electricity to an owner or occupier in premises. Admittedly the complainant is the occupier of the premises and the opposite party can not deny an essential utility as electricity on the ground that the complainant is not the owner.
The complainant approached District Legal Service Authority, Guntur to direct the opposite parties to provide electricity supply to the house bearing No.15-14-83/1/A. The opposite parties received notices from District legal Services Authority, Guntur but they did not respond. Having no other go, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint. Hence, the complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party filed its version and the same is adopted by 2nd opposite party by filing memo. The version of 1st opposite party in brief as follows:
The complainant made an application to provide service connections to 6 portions of asbestos sheds bearing Door No.15-14-83/1/A which is situated in Gandhi Nagar, RTC Colony Extension, Guntur with some documents as a proof of his residence. But the complainant has produced one sale deed pertaining to the premises for which he is asking for provision of service connections is in the name of one Boilla Padmaja who is none other than his daughter in law. Admittedly there are some civil disputes regarding the properties between the complainant and his daughter-in-law. It seems the said Boilla Padmaja executed a gift deed, dt.19-07-08 in the name of one Duggempudi Sushma who is none other than her sister. Aggrieved by the transaction made under gift deed, the complainant herein filed a suit before 1st Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur and the same is pending. In order to provide service connection to any premises it is mandatory to produce a document which shows the title of owner and in case of tenant/occupier, it is mandatory to produce no objection letter from the owner of premises. Accordingly, the complainant herein has to produce no objection certificate from the owner of property to give service connection to the premises. As the complainant failed to produce the same, the opposite parties could not provide the service connections. There is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite parties and on the other hand, it is a failure on the part of complainant to produce no objection certificate from the owner of the property to give service connections. Therefore, in view of the above facts it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. Both parties have filed their respective affidavits. No documents are marked on either side.
5. Now the points for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINTS 1 & 2
The complainant applied for the supply of electricity under section 43 of Electricity Act in the capacity of occupier. The opposite party refused to provide electricity stating that the occupier/tenant has to produce no objection letter from the owner of premises.
7. The complainant’s contention is that he purchased the sight and constructed the house and drew title in favour of his daughter-in-law. There are disputes between the complainant and his daughter-in-law regarding the above said property. In this connection, the complainant also filed a civil suit.
8. It is admitted by the complainant in his complaint that the title of above said property is in the name of his daughter-in-law. According to clause 5.2.3 of terms and conditions of Supply of Distribution and Retail Supply Licenses:
“An applicant who is not the owner of the premises he occupies and intending to avail of supply shall submit an Indemnity Bond drawn by the owner of the premises in favour of the company whereby the owner of the premises undertakes to indemnify the company for any loss caused to the company by the applicant (who is the tenant/occupant of the premises) arising out of the release of service to the tenant/occupant. Otherwise he shall be required to pay three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises.”
9. The complainant being the occupier failed to produce indemnity bond. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Thus opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.
10. The counsel for complainant relied on the following citations:
- AIR 2010 PATNA 171 between Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs. Bihar State Electricty Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna and others.
2. AIR 2008 CALCUTTA 47 between Molay Kumar Acharya Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, WB State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & others
11. The decisions relied on by the counsel for complainant are not relevant to the facts of present case as those cases are conditioned on bonifide occupation and legitimacy.
12. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 2nd day of April, 2011.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXX
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant: NIL
For Opposite parties: NIL
PRESIDENT
