Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite parties for supply of electricity to his house situated in D.No.330 in Gorantla village and to pay Rs.1000/- per day for not supplying electricity within a month and for costs. 

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant and his brother Krishna Reddy got Ac.2.08 in D.No.330 of Gorantla village by virtue of the will dated              21-05-81 executed by one Tiyyagura Sambi Reddy.  In the oral partition the complainant got Ac.1.04 on southern side and his brother got Ac.1.14 on northern side that took place after the death of the testator.   Names of the complainant and his brother were mutated in revenue records and revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the complainant and his brother for their extent of land.   The complainant constructed a small shed in his extent of land and made fencing so as to live therein.  The complainant deposited Rs.1300/- and other expenses for supply of electricity and made an application on 07-03-12.   A transformer was located in the near by cirkar donka on the southern side of the land of the complainant and there is no difficulty for giving connection to the complainant.  But the 1^st opposite party insisted the complainant to consult one Bhavanam Siva Reddy and settle the matter.  The complainant has no necessity to settle the matter with the said Siva Reddy and requested the 1^st opposite party to provide connection to his shed.   Inspite of repeated requests the opposite parties did not supply electricity to the complainant.   The opposite parties have nothing to do with internal disputes if any between the complainant and his brother.  The complainant approached this Forum having vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.  The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed memo adopting the version of 2^nd opposite party and the contents in brief are hereunder:

        The complainant on 07-03-12 paid Rs.1300/- towards new service connection charges.   On the same day complainant’s brother Krishna Reddy got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties and objected for giving new service connection for want of partition of land.  The said Krishna Reddy filed OS 218 of 2012 on the file of the           V Addl. Sr.Civil Judge, Guntur and the same is pending.    The opposite parties never insisted the complainant to consult one Bhavanam Siva Reddy.  The opposite parties informed the complainant about the pendency of OS 218 of 2012.   The complainant with false allegations issued legal notice on 17-03-12 to the opposite parties.   The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.     Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.B-1 were marked on behalf of complainant and opposite parties respectively.                   

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
3. To what relief?

7.  POINT No.1:-   The complainant depositing Rs.1300/- towards new service connection charges and issuing notice (Ex.A-6) are not in dispute.   Ex.A-1 is registration extract of will dated 21-05-81 executed by one Tiyyagura Sambi Reddy in favour of his great grand son Subba Reddy (complainant) and his brother Krishna Reddy.  An extent of Ac.2.08 cents from out of Ac.4.28 in Division No.330 was mentioned in Ex.A-1 among other properties.   The Government issued title deed and pattadar pass book (Exs.A-2 and A-3) in favour of the complainant.  Exs.A-2 and A-3 revealed that the complainant got Ac.1.09 in D.No.301 and Ac.1.04 cents in D.No.330 of Gorantla village.  Ex.A-2 and A-3 further revealed that the complainant alienated Ac.1.09 in survey Nos.301 to M/s Anjali Townships.  

8.   Neither the complainant nor opposite parties filed copy of plaint in OS 218 of 2012 on the file of IV Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Guntur.   It is not the case of the opposite parties that there was a stay granted by the said court.    The provisions contained in Section 43 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 are extracted below for better appreciation:

           “Duty to supply on request:- (1) (save as otherwise provided in the Act, every distribution) licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises, within one month after receipt of the application requiring such supply.

            Provided that where such supply requires extension of distribution mains, or commissioning of new sub-station, the distribution licensee shall supply the electricity to such premises immediately after such extension or commissioning or within such period as may be specified by the Appropriate Commission:

            Provided further that in case of a village or hamlet or area wherein no provision for supply of electricity exists, the Appropriate Commission may extend the said period as it may consider necessary for electrification of such village or hamlet or area.

        Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, “application” means the application complete in all respects in the appropriate form, as required by the distribution licensee, along with documents showing payment of necessary charges and other compliances.      

          (2) It shall be the duty of every distribution licensee to provide, if required, electric plant or electric line for giving electric supply to the premises specified in sub-section (1):

         Provided that no person shall be entitled to demand, or to continue to receive, from a licensee a supply of electricity for any premises having a separate supply unless he has agreed with the licensee to pay to him such price determined by the Appropriate Commission.

        (3) If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within a period specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to one thousand rupees for each day of default”.

Even in the absence of partition also the complainant is entitled to have power supply to his shed by virtue of Ex.A-1 will. 

9.     In Shyam Das Banik vs. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and others (AIR 2011 Calcutta 28)         it was held:

            “It is not the case of the licensee that the petitioner is not an occupier of a portion of the premises.   Being an occupier of a portion of the undivided property the petitioner is entitled to electricity under S.43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  It has been clearly stated that the petitioner is the only occupier, though the property is jointly owned by him and his sister and brothers.  Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the licensee was wrong in withholding supply to him”.  

10.   The opposite parties ought to have given new service connection to the complainant in the absence of any prohibitory orders in OS 218 of 2012.   Therefore, we opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and answer this point in favour of the complainant.

11.  POINT No.2:-     The contention of the opposite parties is that they could not provide new service connection to the complainant in view of pendency of OS 218 of 2012 apprehending contempt proceedings is having considerable force.   The authorities of the opposite parties ought to have consulted their standing counsel in view of section 43 (3) of the Electricity Act 2003.   The complaint was silent as already observed regarding OS 218 of 2012.    Under those circumstances,   the complainant is not entitled to any damages.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.    

12. POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

        1.  The opposite parties are directed to provide new service                 connection within a week from the date of receipt of this order.

        2.  The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees                         one thousand only) towards costs within six weeks from                   the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2012.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties : 

                                                                                                               PRESIDENT