BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
FA 375/2010 against C.C 36/2009, Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram
Between:
Seera Rama Devi
W/o. S. V. Vasudeva Rao
Age: 36 years,
R/o. Devi Nagar, Near Gandhi Satram
Parvathipuram,
Vizianagaram Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant.
And
1) The Asst. Electrical Engineer
Electrical Operations (APECPDCL)
Parvathipuram,
Vizianagaram Dist.
2) The Divisional Engineer
Electrical Operations,
APECPDCL, Bobbili
Vizianagaram Dist.
3) The Superintending Engineer
Operation Circle,
APECPDCL,
Vizianagaram
4) The Chairman & Managing Director
APECPDCL, Opp. Saraswathi Park
Visakapatnam. *** Respondents/
Ops.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. T. Rajasekhara Rao.
Counsel for the Resps: Admission Stage.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that this matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.
2) Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
3) The case of the complainant in brief is that she had service connection No. 12557 for supply of electrical energy for her agricultural lands situated at survey Nos. 357 and 358 of Parvathipuram in Vizianagaram District. She has been paying the amounts till the meter was burnt. The said fact was informed to the electricity department. As per the policy of the government, the electricity department was bound to provide free electricity to all the farmers. Despite her representations the said benefit was not extended to her. On the other hand they demanded her to pay Rs. 19,185/- towards current consumption charges and also disconnected the supply. In fact she is a small farmer entitled to free supply from 2001 itself. The demand was illegal and therefore she sought a direction for supply of free electrical energy besides regularizing her service connection together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.
4) The electricity department resisted the case. The electricity was released for agricultural purposes under category-V with three phase meter under paying category as per her application. It alleged that there was no government policy of free supply during the years 2001-2004 to any agricultural service connections. Since she had utilized the energy a demand was made for an amount of Rs. 19,185/- by notice Dt. 9.3.2009. Since she did not pay the arrears power was disconnected. In the year 2004 free supply of power was given on certain terms and conditions. Importantly the consumer had to produce No Due Certificate and that since the complainant did not pay the arrears nor sought for conversion, she was not entitled to the same. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A11 marked while the electricity department filed the affidavit evidence of its officer and did not file any documents.
6) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant could not show that there was a scheme or policy laid down by the government that it would supply electricity free of charge. The complainant being not dependent on agricultural alone and as her husband being an employee of a nationalised bank she is not entitled to free supply of power and therefore dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complainant has requested for regularization of her service connection for agricultural fields. The disconnection as well as demand of Rs. 19,185/- was illegal. Therefore she prayed that her connection be regularized by cancelling the demand notice besides awarding compensation.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
9) At the outset, we may state that she was having service connection No. 12557 for agricultural purposes right from the year 2001. When she committed default in payment of current consumption charges her power supply was disconnected. She now alleges that she was entitled to supply of electricity free of charge. Consequently the demand of Rs. 19,185/- was illegal. It is equally her contention that non-payment of the amount should not entail her service connection to be disconnected. The complainant did not file any document in order to prove that the government has laid down a policy to supply energy free of cost for agricultural purposes.
The contention of the electricity department that there was no such policy in the year 2001 or 2004 is not controverted. The very record discloses that there was a policy to provide free power to the needy agricultural farmers who were entirely dependent on agriculture alone for their livelihood. The Dist. Forum had categorically observed that the complainant was not entirely dependent on agriculture. Her husband is an employee of a nationalised bank. Either way she was not eligible to have free power supply. These facts were not controverted by her even in the grounds of appeal. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) _________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 19. 03. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
