This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri. Katta Suresh, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This Complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner and possessor of land measuring 2-00 Ac. in Survey No.582 situated at Kotha Kothuru Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for service connection to his field and on the demand of opposite party No.1 the complainant paid Rs.6,175/- by way of four Demand Drafts in the name of AAO/ERO/R/APNPDCL/Khammam.  The complainant submitted that he approached the opposite parties and requested for sanction of service connection to his agricultural field, but the opposite parties post phoning the matter, he addressed a letter on 15-07-2013 requesting the opposite party to provide service connection, but the opposite parties did not give any reply and kept silent.  The complainant also submitted that due to non-providing of service connection to his fields, the complainant suffered heavy loss and he is unable to raise the crops in his fields for the last 3 years, as such the opposite parties are jointly and serverally liable to pay the damages for that the complainant approached the Forum.   

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. 

4.       On receipt of notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter, opposite parties No.1 & 2 admitted the contents in para No.1 of the complaint.  The opposite parties further submitted that after receiving application from the complainant, the A.E (Operation) Nelakondapally visited the site to be electrified and on observation bore well was not dig for preparing the estimate to construct the electric line.  Also submitted that it is not possible to prepare estimate without a bore well and consumer was in contact with the opposite party No.1 office to convey the message so as to dig the bore well to provide the electricity supply.  The opposite parties further submitted that after lapse of huge time on 15-07-2013 the complainant approached the office of opposite party No.1, then the A.E. (Operation) Nelakondapally inspected the site and found that there bore well was dug, the estimation was prepared and that is under process and also submitted the work will be taken up soon after completion of official sanction.  The opposite parties further submitted that there is no negligence on their part in providing service connection to the complainant, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       On behalf of the opposite party no documents filed.

6.       Heard Oral arguments from both sides. 

7.       Upon perusing the material papers on record now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

Point:-

8.       In this case the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for service connection to his agricultural land, on demand of opposite party No.1 the complainant paid Rs.6,175/- by way of Demand Drafts on 03-11-2011, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to sanction service connections.  According to the complainant he addressed a letter on 02-07-2013 requesting the opposite parties to provide service connection to his agricultural fields, but the opposite parties failed to give reply and kept silent, for that the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 

          From the documents and material available on record, we observed that there is no dispute about the payment of Rs.6,175/- made by the complainant through Demand Draft dt. 03-11-2011 in favour of the opposite parties.  According to the opposite parties, immediately after receiving the application the A.E. (Operation) Nelakondapally visited the fields of complainant and observed that there is no bore well for preparing the estimate to construct electric line and requested the complainant to convey the message so as to dig the bore well.   From the complaint we observed that the complainant addressed a letter on 15-07-2013, on that the A.E. (Operation) inspected the site, found the bore well, estimate prepared and i.e. under process.  The counsel for opposite party filed a memo stating that the service connection was released on 01-11-2013 after completion of official sanction.  From the above we observed that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in providing the service connection to the fields of the complainant, we cannot attribute any deficiency against the opposite parties as such this point is answered against the complainant.

9.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 29^th day of June, 2015.

       Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                       For Opposite party

                Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam