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 House bearing No.10-2-105, situated at Mamillagudem, Khammam town, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for service connection to his III floor house, on the demand of opposite party No.1 the complainant paid Rs.2,425/- by way of Demand Draft on 27-08-2012 in the name of AAO/ERO/R/APNPDCL/Khammam.  The complainant submitted that he approached the opposite parties and requested for supply of service connection to his house, but the opposite parties are post phoning the matter on one pretext or the other, 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 the house of the complainant, the complainant suffering untold mental agony without power supply, the opposite parties are jointly and severally 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 that the complainant had applied for electricity service connection on 23-11-2011 at consumer service centre.  The opposite parties further submitted that the application was rejected because there was no separate portion, it is only roof for steps, the building has six portions and the complainant is already having 7 services, in that 2 numbers are III phase services and 5 numbers are single phase.  The opposite parties also submitted that as per G.T.C.S. separate kitchen is essential for other single connection and if the consumer arrangement for separate kitchen he has to register his application by paying Rs.25/- registration fee at consumer service centre or he can get transfer to his existing service connection.  The opposite parties further submitted that there is no deficiency on their part and they are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

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

6.       Heard Oral arguments. 

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

i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

    parties?

ii) To what relief?

Point:-

i)        In this case the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for service connection to his house bearing No.10-2-105, Mamillagudem, Khammam, on demand of opposite party No.1, the complainant paid Rs.2,425/- in consumer service centre on 23-11-2011, the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested to sanction service connection.  According to the complainant he addressed a letter on 27-08-2012 requesting the opposite parties to provide service connection to his house, 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.2,425/- made by the complainant on 23-11-2011 in consumer service centre, Khammam circle.  According to the opposite parties, immediately after receiving the application the opposite parties inspected the house of the complainant and observed that the complainant is already having 7 service connections to his house and the application was rejected because there is no separate portion and it is only roof for steps and also as per G.T.C.S. separate kitchen is essential for other single phase service connection.  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 house of the complainant and we cannot attribute any deficiency against the opposite parties as such this point is answered against the complainant.

ii)      From the documents we also observed that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,425/- on 23-11-2011 for service connection in consumer service centre NPDCL, Khammam circle.  The opposite parties already rejected the application of the complainant.  In the above circumstances the opposite parties are liable to return the deposit amount of Rs.2,425/- dt.23-11-2011.  As such the opposite parties are directed to return the deposited amount of Rs.2,425/- with interest as per their rules and regulations. 

8.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to return the deposit amount of Rs.2,425/- with interest as per their rules and regulations from the date of deposit i.e. dt. 23-11-2011.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 21^st day of September, 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