Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/25/2018

S.Rajagopal Reddy, S/o Kanna Reddy, Rep. by President, National Association of Consumers(NAC) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL (Rural) - Opp.Party(s)

President of NAC

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 17.08.2018

Order Date:11.07.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.25/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Sri.S.Rajagopal Reddy,

Aged about 45 years,

S/o. Kanna Reddy,

Mandapampalle village,

Dornakambala post,

Chandragiri Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Assistant Engineer,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.(Rural),

            Kothapeta,

            Chandragiri- 517 101,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  … Opposite party No.1

 

2.         The Tahsildar,

            Chandragiri  - 517 101,

            Chandragiri Mandal                                                             …  Opposite party No.2

            (O.P.No.2 added as per orders in I.A.No.23/2018)

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.07.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing The President, National Association of Consumers (NAC), for the complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.2 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12  of C.P.Act 1986, praying for  direction to the opposite parties, to reconnect the electrical service connection, to pay Rs.19,90,000/- as compensation for causing mental and physical agony to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, and further to pay costs of Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            2.  The brief facts are as follows:-  The grievance of the complainant is that though he was paying electricity bills regularly, his electricity service connection was disconnected by opposite party No.1 arbitrarily without giving an opportunity to him, by issuing a notice and by giving not less than 15 days time to him, to give reply in writing. He is an agriculturist and he lost his livelihood, as he could not cultivate land due to lack of water on account of disconnection of electricity supply. He brought to the notice of higher authorities of APSPDCL through Spandana programme on 12.02.2018, but there was no action on the part of opposite party No.1. A notice was sent to opposite party No.1, for which reply was given vide letter dt:23.03.2018 stating that the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, has instructed the electricity department, to disconnect the power supply to the bore well (ASC No.5424207000502) located in Sy.No.211/1B1, which is an extent of 10.95 cents, for the reason that bore well is located in the land classified as ‘Vagu Poramboku’, which is objectionable, and on the said letter, the opposite party has disconnected the supply. He applied under RTI Act for information from APSPDCL, and vide their letter No.APSPDCL/TPT/ P.O/ RTI/F.No.36/D No.860/18 dt:19.03.2018, in which he came to know that Tahsildar did not instruct the opposite party to disconnect the power supply, but instructed to take necessary action against sanction of electrical service connection for the borewell  in Vagu Poramboku. There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties with regard to disconnection of electricity supply to his agricultural lands, and as such it is prayed to allow this complaint by giving appropriate directions as prayed for.

            3.  Opposite party No.1 filed written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint averments are denied. As per Section-168 of Electricity Act 2003 and Section-82 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, “No suit or prosecution or any other legal proceedings lies against the employees of APSPDCL for anything done or in good faith”. The complainant should have filed the complaint against APSPDCL, but not against the employees. On the sole ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in-limine.  It is submitted that the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As per Apex Court observation in Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another vs. Anwar Ali case, it is held “the assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature, which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum”. It is further submitted that complainant is having service connection No.5424207000502 with contracted load of 5 HP released on 25.01.2005 on category No.5, which is located in Sy.No.211/1B1 in Mandapampalli village. It is denied that electricity connection is situated in Sy.No.178/3 of Mandapampalli, and he is doing cultivation and solely depending on the agricultural income. The complainant is called upon to prove that the disputed electricity connection is situated whether in S.No.211/1B1 or in Sy.No.178/3. The disconnection of service connection was effected on the basis of letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to opposite party No.1 with regard to bore well situated in Sy.No.211/1B1 and it is classified as ‘Vagu Poramboke’ and on that letter, opposite party No.1 took necessary action against the electricity connection to the bore well, which is situated in Vagu Poramboke. Hence, question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 does not arise. The complainant is called upon to prove that he is in lawful occupation of borewell and the same is situated in his land. The complainant is called upon to prove that on account of disconnection of electricity supply, the crops raised by him were dried-up, on account of which he suffered financial loss to a tune of lakhs of rupees. At the instance of Tahsildar, Chandragiri only, the authorities of APSPDCL swung into action to disconnect the electricity supply in the course of discharge of their duties and acted in good faith, and they have not done anything against the law. The Tahsildar, Chandragiri, is also a necessary party to the present litigation, as the disputed bore well is situated in government property to which service connection is given. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party also. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            4.  During the pendency of the case, the complainant had filed I.A.No.23/2018, to implead Tahsildar, Chandragiri, also as one of the parties to the complaint, in the light of the plea taken by opposite party No.1 in the written version, I.A.No.23/2018 is allowed. But the proposed party i.e. Tahsildar, Chandragiri, remained exparte in the case.

            5.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of opposite party No.1, R.W.1 filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B3.

            6. The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            7.  Point:-  The contention of complainant is that he was having electricity service connection bearing No.5424207000502 to his bore well situated in Sy.No.178/3 of Mandapampalle village, and the said service connection was disconnected by opposite party No.1 arbitrarily without following the procedure, and giving mandatory notice about the proposed action to be taken by opposite party No.1 and asking him to give reply within 15 days.

            8.  On the other hand, opposite party No.1 counsel argued that there is no question of opposite party No.1 officials acting in arbitrary manner, and on the basis of the letter addressed by Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to take necessary action with regard to service connection given to bore well situated in Sy.No.211/1B1 in Mandapampalli village, which is ‘vagu poramboku’, opposite party No.1 officials swung into action and disconnected the electricity supply. It is further argued that there is no question of any malafide intention on the part of opposite party No.1 in disconnecting the service connection. Further, it is argued that as there is dispute with regard to the nature of the land, it is for the complainant to prove that the land i.e. Sy.No.211/1B1 of Mandapampalli village is his land and he is the lawful owner of the borewell situated in the said survey number.

            9.  As far as opposite party No.2 is concerned, there is no contest, as he remained exparte.

            10.  Coming to the documents, Ex.A1 is electricity bill pertaining to the disputed service connection and the same is filed to show that the complainant has been paying the electricity bill up to date. Ex.A2 is letter dt:12.02.2018 addressed by the complainant to Chairman and Managing Director, APSPDCL, Tirupati, bringing to his notice, alleging that the A.E., Chandragiri, has disconnected the service connection on 06.10.2017 without any reason and without any prior intimation to him, and thus violated the provisions of Electricity Act. It is alleged that the A.E., Chandragiri, behaved in irresponsible and rude manner, and on account of disconnection of the electrical supply, the paddy and ground nut crop in the said land dried-up, causing huge financial loss to him. Ex.A3 is letter addressed to Public Information Officer (RTI Act), APSPDCL, on 20.02.2018, seeking certain information with regard to disconnection of service connection. Ex.A4 is letter addressed by P.I.O, APSPDCL, to complainant furnishing information with regard to the location of the borewell. Ex.A5 is notice issued by complainant to A.E., APSPDCL, dt:19.03.2018, alleging deficiency in service on A.E’s part and claiming compensation for causing mental agony to him. Ex.A6 is reply given by A.E., APSPDCL, stating that on the instructions of Tahsildar, Chandragiri, to disconnect the agricultural power supply to the borewell (ASC No.5424207000502), which is located in Sy.No.211/1B1 in an extent of 10.95 cents, as the borewell is located in the land classified as ‘Vagu Poramboke’, which is objectionable, the Assistant Line Man, Sri.Munikrishna, Gangudupalli, disconnected the service connection to the disputed borewell, and further requested the complainant to obtain permission from Tahsildar, Chandragiri, for restoration of power supply to his agricultural service connection. Opposite party marked Ex.B1 survey sketch relating to Sy.No.211/1B1 of Dornakambala. Ex.B2 is Adangal relating to Sy.No.211/1B1of Dornakambala, and the same is marked in order to show that the land situated in Sy.No.211/1B1 in an extent of 10.95 cents is Vagu and belongs to Government. Ex.B3 is extract relating to Sy.No.211/1B1 of Dornakambala.

            11.  We have perused the documentary evidence filed by both sides. The documents filed by opposite party No.1 shows that the disputed borewell is situated in Sy.No.211/1B1, which is vaguporamboku and belongs to Government. The case of the complainant is that the disputed borewell is situated in Sy.No.178/3 of mandapampalle village, but no documentary evidence is produced by the complainant to show that disputed borewell is situated in Sy.No.178/3. So, there is dispute with regard to exact location of borewell, i.e. to say in which survey number the borewell is situated whether in Sy.No.211/1B1 or in Sy.No.178/3. It is the contention of the opposite party counsel that the complainant first of all has to prove that he is in lawful possession of the land in which the borewell is situated, but the complainant has not produced any documents to prove the same. If the borewell is situated in Sy.No.211/1B1, as per the documentary evidence produced by opposite party No.1, the complainant cannot say that he is in lawful possession of the said land in which the borewell is situated. Any how the dispute with regard to borewell appears to be civil in nature and therefore it is for the complainant to seek redressal of the dispute in proper court. Even otherwise we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1, the documents produced by opposite party No.1 shows that, opposite party No.1 acted on the basis of letter addressed by opposite party No.2 with regard to service connection of the borewell. No malafide intention can be attributed to opposite party No.1 in this regard. Further, as seen from reply given by A.E., APSPDCL, Chandragiri, to the complainant, in which the complainant, was asked to approach Tahsildar, Chandragiri, for taking necessary permission to restore the electricity supply to the borewell. But without approaching opposite party No.2 to get the problem resolved, the complainant has rushed to this Forum for remedy. We have already held that the dispute raised by the complainant does not fall within the ambit of C.P.Act. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of complainant in this regard. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.

            12.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                    

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of July, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                 

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri Savireddy Rajagopal Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri Y. Nagaraju (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Self attested photo copy of electricity bills paid for the months 10/17, 11/17, 12/17 & 01/18 along with statement of payments furnished by APSPDCL under RTI Act, 2005.
	A copy of Complaint Dt: 12.02.2018 submitted to the APSPDCL in SPANDANA programme.
	Photo copy of Application Dt: 20.02.2018 under RTI Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer (RTI Act) APSPDCL, Corporate Office, Tirupati along with original copy of Postal Receipt.
	True copy of Reply Dt: 19.03.2018 submitted by the APSPDCL to my RTI application.
	Notice Dt: 19.03.2018 sent to the opposite party.
	True copy of Reply Dt: 23.03.2018 to the notice sent by the opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of Survey Sketch relating to Survey No.211/1B/1 of Dorna Kambala, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District.
	Adangal relating to Survey No.211/1B/1 of Dornakambala, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District. (Mee Seva copy in Original). Dt: 02.07.2018.
	1B extract relating to Survey No.211/1B/1 of Dornakambala, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District. (Mee Seva copy in Original). Dt: 02.07.2018.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                           President (FAC)

                                       // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

        Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.