This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 13-08-12               in the presence of Sri C. Venkataramaiah, advocate for complainant, Sri N. Kiran Bhanu, advocate for 1^st opposite party and of                       Sri G. Erukala Reddy, advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking restoration of service connection No.214642 and for costs.    

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

        The complainant purchased an extent of 114 sq. yards out of 484 sq.yards comprised in town survey No.406 with Dr.No.26/13/36 and 37 in New ward No.23 (old ward No.17 of Guntur Municipal Corporation) from one Garlapati Purnakoteswara Rao and his children for Rs.2,00,000/- and since then is in possession and enjoyment of the said property.  Prior to that the complainant was a tenant of the said property.   On 22-03-10 the complainant paid Rs.2225/- to the opposite party for obtaining new electricity connection to the said property.   The opposite party granted service connection bearing No.SC 214642 to the said property and provided power supply for about 18 days.    While things stood thus the opposite party illegally and high handedly disconnected power supply to the said service connection even without issuing notice to the complainant.   The disconnection of power supply to the complainant’s house amounted to deficiency of service.   The complainant failed in his attempts to get power supply restored to the said service connection.   The complainant and his family members suffered a lot due to the above act of the opposite party.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant made an application for providing power supply to his property and paid Rs.2225/- on 22-03-10 enclosing copy of agreement of sale dated 08-02-02. The opposite party provided power supply vide SC.No.214642 to the premises of complainant.  On 25-03-10 one G. Kantha Rao addressed a letter to the opposite party contending that the complainant is a tenant in their house and is staying there illegally without paying any rent and is trying to occupy the said premises by forging documents and sought for disconnection of power supply.   The opposite party on 30-03-10 addressed a letter to the complainant asking him to produce the deeds to prove his legal possession within seven days.   As the complainant failed to produce deeds in support of his contention the opposite party on 11-04-10 disconnected power supply.   The opposite party neither acted negligently nor committed deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     The 2^nd opposite party was impleaded to this case as per orders in RP No.47 of 2011 dated 18-01-12.  

5.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

        The complainant obtained service connection on the strength of a letter said to have been issued by a Municipal Corporator.   The complainant is only a trespasser of law and has no manner of right to continue in the subject premises.  The 2^nd opposite party filed Civil cases against the complainant seeking arrears of rent and eviction.  The 1^st opposite party disconnected power supply on 11-04-10 on the letter dated 30-03-10 addressed by the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant kept quite for about an year and thereafter filed this complaint with false averments.  The complainant has no right to seek restoration of power supply.   The complaint therefore be dismissed. 

6.  Exs.A-1 to A-23 and Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on behalf of complainant and 2^nd opposite party respectively.     

7.     Now the points that arose for consideration are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. To what relief?

8.      Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The complainant is in possession of the disputed premises.
2. The 1^st opposite party gave service connection No.214642 to the premises where the complainant is residing.
3. The 1^st opposite party disconnected power supply to the said premises on the representation of the 2^nd opposite party.
4. Civil cases are pending between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

9.      The 2^nd opposite party filed IA 438 of 2011 seeking his impleadment to this case.  This Forum dismissed IA 438 of 2011 on 27-10-11.   The 2^nd opposite party filed RP No.47 of 2011 before APSCDRC.  While allowing RP 47 of 2011 APSCDRC observed

                ”Since the proposed party is claiming title over the property, he ought to have made a party in the matter, since the electricity board disconnected the power supply on his representation.   However, we may clarify herein that the District Forum shall not adjudicate the title between the complainant and the revision petitioner.  The question that arises for consideration could be whether the electricity board is justified in disconnecting the power supply, on the representation of the third party is as per rules.

With this observation, this revision is allowed and consequently IA.No.438/11 is allowed directing the District forum to implead the proposed party as R2 in the main complaint and permit him file his written version and proceed with the matter, according to law.  In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs”.

10.  POINT No.1:-    In view of the above observations made by APSCDRC this Forum has to see whether the 1^st opposite party acted as per rules while disconnecting power supply to the disputed premises of the complainant on the representation of the 2^nd opposite party. 

11.    The complaint as well as affidavit of the complainant was silent when the 1^st opposite party disconnected power supply to the disputed premises.   On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties    1 and 2 is that power supply to the disputed premises was disconnected on 11-04-10. Therefore, it has to be inferred that the 1^st opposite party disconnected power supply to the disputed premises on 11-04-10 only.   The complaint filed on 29-06-11 was within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act.   Therefore, the contention of the 2^nd opposite party about the complainant keeping quite for about an year after disconnection of power supply in no way assist him and the said contention is devoid of merit. 

12.      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”.

13.   Even according to the 2^nd opposite party also the complainant is in occupation of the disputed premises.   The nature of complainant’s possession over the disputed premises is in dispute.   According to section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 an occupier of premises is also entitled to have power supply.   Being an occupier of the premises in dispute the complainant is entitled to have power supply. 

14.   The decisions relied on by the complainant reported in France B. Martins and another vs. Mrs.  Mafaida Maria Teresa Rodrigues            AIR 1999 SC 3243;  E. Ranganathan vs. Superintending Engineer, Tamilnadu Electricity Board & others 2000 (1) CPJ 528;                   Molay Kumar Acharya vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director,                     W.B. State Electricity Distribution company Limited & others                   AIR 2008 47; Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & Another vs. Ashok Iron Works Private Limited AIR 2009 SC 1905; Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others AIR 2000 SC 3138 are not applicable to the case on hand in view of the point to be decided in this case as observed by APSCDRC in RP 47 of 2011 dated 18-01-12.

15.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party about the complainant furnishing an agreement of sale dated 08-02-02 belied the contention of the 2^nd opposite party that the power supply was given on the basis of a letter given by a municipal corporator. 

16.   It is the contention of the opposite parties that the 1^st opposite party by a notice required the complainant to produce deeds in support of his contention.   The 1^st opposite party did not file any document to show that it served such notice on the complainant before disconnecting power supply.   The 1^st opposite party not only acted in haste in providing power supply to the complainant without examining the alleged vendor of the agreement of sale dated 08-02-02 but also in disconnecting power supply to the complainant without seeking complainant’s explanation in writing and disconnecting power supply.   We therefore opine that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service. 

17.   According to the complainant one Garlapati Purna Koteswara Rao and his children executed the agreement of sale dated 08-02-02 in his favour.   According to the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant was his tenant and is in possession of the disputed premises illegally.   This Forum cannot go into the truth or otherwise of the said agreement of sale besides ownership of the disputed premises.   Even according to the 2^nd opposite party also he filed civil cases against the complainant herein both for arrears of rent and eviction. 

18.   In view of the afore mentioned discussion we opine that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service i.e, in disconnecting power supply without following the principles of natural justice and answer this point against the opposite parties.

19.  POINT No.2:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to restore power supply to the SC.No.214642 within a week after receipt of this order if not already restored.
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant 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 17^th day of August, 2012.

              MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:

              PRESIDENT