Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC//158/2012

Nunna Peda Subba Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineers , Operations - Opp.Party(s)

Nunna Peda Subba Rao, Inperson

25 Nov 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:23-05-2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:25-11-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Tuesday, the 25^th day of November, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.158/2012

Between:-

Nunna Peda Subba Rao, S/o late

Krishna Murty, Hindu, aged 65 years,

R/at D.No.12-3-42, Sarada Colony (3^rd lane),

Anakapalle-531001.  Cell No.9704001386.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Asst. Engineer (Operations),

   Office of the A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd.,

   Nakkaplle Mandal, Nakkaplle-531081

2.The Divisional Engineer (Operations),

   Office of the A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd.,

   Nidanam Doddi, Anakapalle-531001.

   Cell No.9440812490.

3.Piryadi Chanti (Proprietor)

   Sri Venkateswara Digital Home Entertainment

   Pvt. Ltd., Kotha Veedhi (3^rd Lane),

   Nakkapalle Mandal, Nakkapalle-531081.

   Cell No.7306032888.

                                                                                   …  Opposite Parties 

                     

          This case coming on 05.11.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.P. Subba Rao, appeared inperson for the Complainant and Sri K.S. Sankar and K.V. Lakshmi, Advocates for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and 3^rd the Opposite Party being exparte and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 3: a) to replace the damaged Electrical Service Wires with new wires or in the alternative to pay Rs.1,500/-, b) to pay costs of Rs.3,500/- and c) to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and expenses of time and money.

  

2.     The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

          The 3^rd Opposite Party did not resist the claim of the Complainant as it was set exparte and remained set exparte.

 

 3.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainant owns a house and shop in Avvaru Veedhi, Nakkapalle (Vill), Nakkapalle Mandal and he has two electrical service connections from the A.P.E.P.D.C.L.  As the matter stood thus, the 3^rd Opposite Party cable operator cut the said two service wires and run his cable wires to a house in the vicinity.   Then the 3^rd Opposite Party connected cut wires with tape.  When the Complainant reported the matter to the A.P.E.P.D.C.L, they inspected the said wires, in the absence of the Complainant, and got the cable wires separated from the service wire.  But the damaged service wires posed a threat to lives ever since and the Complainant approached the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. (represented by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2) and also the 3^rd Opposite Party cable operator and asked for replacement of the damaged service wires with new wires or in the alternative to pay Rs.1,500/- so that he get new service wires installed.    But the 1^st Opposite Party (represented by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2) sent Ex.A7 letter dated 13.02.2012 to the Complainant stating that the matter of replacement of the damaged service wires did not come within purview of the A..E.P.D.C.L. and so the Complainant had to solve the problem with the cable operator only.    The Complainant stated that the cable operator also did not respond.   As such, the Complainant is forced to approach this Forum.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit, and also written arguments to support his claim.   Exs.A1 to A18 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that it is true that the Opposite Parties provided 1 and 2 service connection to the Complainant but the cable operator/3^rd Opposite Party erected the lines to all the residents of the village but did not touch the electricity lines and they have provided cable lines separately.   If the cable operators cause any disturbance/damage to the electricity services the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties department will take action against the cable operator/3^rd Opposite Party.      In case, the 3^rd Opposite Party/Cable Operator causes any damage to the Complainant’s house or electricity lines, he could approach the concerned police station and file a case against the cable operator/3^rd Opposite Party.   But the Complainant’s  grievance cannot be agitated before this Forum as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and therefore, the above Complaint against these Opposite Parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and therefore, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2  are  unnecessarily added as parties.       Hence, this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the above complaint with costs.

 

6.       No exhibits are marked for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant.

          The matter has not been heard on behalf of the Opposite Parties 1 &2.

 

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that it is common knowledge that it is the lookout of the Consumer to arrange service wires, so that the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. i.e., the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 can give electricity to the Consumer’s house.   If the wires were to be damaged, it is the duty of the consumer himself to replace them with new wires.   The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 representing the A.P.E.P.D.C.L., have nothing to do with the replacement of damaged service wires with new wires.   If the electrical wires were to be damaged by miscreants, then the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. has to be given report and their Investigation Report, if any, can be used by the Consumer while giving police complaint and thus initiating penal action against the miscreants.    So, in the present case, the Complainant’s claim, that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are to replace the damaged service wires with new wires, is untenable   Moreover, the 3^rd Opposite Party apparently is not a service provider to the Complainant herein.   As such, the dispute between the Complainant herein and the 3^rd Opposite Party does not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act and so falls out side the jurisdiction of this Consumer Forum, if the Complainant seeks any relief against the 3^rd Opposite Party, he  has to approach a proper civil or criminal court in that regard.   In the circumstances, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.

 

9.       In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 25^th day of November, 2014.

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                             Lady Member                              Male Member

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	01.01.2012	A.E.(Operation), Nakkapalle 1st Application	Photo copy
Ex.A02	10.01.2012	A.E. (Operation), Nakkapalle 2nd Application	Photo copy
Ex.A03	20.01.2012	A.E. (Operation), Nakkapalle 3rd Application	Photo copy
Ex.A04	23.01.2012	Photo with acknowledgement card	Original
Ex.A05	14.02.2012	D.E. (Operation), Anakapalle	Photo copy
Ex.A06	12.02.2012	ANL Courier Receipt & one photo	Original
Ex.A07	13.02.2012	Reply letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party	Original
Ex.A08	17.02.2012	Letter issued by the Surya Teja Cable Net Works, Payakuraopeta	Original
Ex.A09	05.03.2012	ANL Courier Receipt	Original
Ex.A10	06.03.2012	Appeal sent by the Complainant to Surya Teja Cable Net Works, Payakuraopeta	Photo copy
Ex.A11	16.04.2012	Letter issued by the 1st OP to the Complainant with Acknowledgment	Photo copy
Ex.A12	24.04.2012	Estimation of Material Installation Charges	Original
Ex.A13	16.04.2012	Electrical Bill Service No.113355 G201 000171	Original
Ex.A14	24.04.2012	House Tax Bill	Original
Ex.A15		Electrical Bill	Original
Ex.A16	17.12.2011	Electrical Bill No.11335 G201	Original
Ex.a17	18.02.2012	Bill No.113355 G 201	Original
Ex.A18	2011 to 2012	House Tax Receipt	Photo copy

 

For the Opposite Parties:-                                           

                                      -Nil- 

Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                         Lady Member                                   Male Member