O  R  D  E  R

(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)

1          Seeking reconnection of service connection No. 4301-026896, the complainant laid this complaint alleging illegal disconnection of the power service connection to his house bearing D.No.45-2-4 of Yesuvari Street, Jagannaicpur, Kakinada.

2          According to him he is the owner of an extent of 575 square yards of site relating D.No. 45-2-4. After purchasing the property he applied for electricity connection and paid necessary amounts.  After verifying the right and title of the complainant over the said property, they had given the service connection to the above said property.  He also paid Rs.180/- on 26.06.2013 for consumption of the electricity for the month of May, 2013.  On 11.06.2013 he received a letter from 2^nd opposite party to the effect that some 3^rd parties are claiming title over the property and requested him to produce documents to prove his title.  Accordingly he submitted his documents but strangely on 28.06.2013 the 2^nd opposite party removed the electricity connection unilaterally without enquiry, when questioned they gave evasive replies.  Thus for the unauthorized service removal complaining deficiency of service, the complainant approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance. 

3          Resisting the claim of the complainant the 2^nd opposite party filed its counter adopted by 1^st opposite party where in they claimed the property alleged to have been purchased by the complainant was already sold in the court auction and the complainant’s vendor had no title to the property. A detailed order was passed on 09.09.2011 in O.S. No. 157/2011 on the file of II^nd Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.  Suppressing the said fact the complainant obtained service connection and the same was disconnected after the fraud played by the complainant came to the light.  Thus they sought dismissal of the complaint.

4          Now the points for determination are:

            1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in disconnecting service connection?

            2.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled for direction for restoration of the service connection?

5          To substantiate his contention the complainant reiterating allegations in the complaint filed his chief affidavit and got marked 6 documents which are permanent receipt issued by the opposite parties Ex.A1, demand notice Ex.A2, letter addressed by the opposite parties to the complainant Ex.A3, permanent receipt issued by the opposite parties Ex.A4, letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant Ex.A5 and receipt issued by the opposite parties Ex.A6.

6          Challenging the version of the complainant the opposite parties did not let in any evidence either oral or documentary.  Though it is the contention of the opposite parties basing on legal opinion of their counsel that the vendors of the complainant has no right and title over the property they disconnected the service, no material is produced to support their version.  Hence in the absence of any such material the allegations in the counter are not at all sufficient.  Thus in these circumstances there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in disconnecting the service connection of the complainant.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.

7          Point No.2:               In view of the finding rendered under point No.1 the complainant is entitled for direction sought by him.

8          In the result, the opposite parties are directed to restore the service connection of the complainant within one month from the date of this order and also to pay sum of Rs. 1,000/- [rupees one thousand only] towards expenses incurred by the complaint.

            Dictation by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 29^th day of January, 2015

Sd/- xxxx                                                                                                             Sd/- xxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant : 

Sri Penupothu Tatarao [Complainant]

For opposite parties:  None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A1                         Permanent receipt issued by the opposite parties [original]

Ex.A2                                     Demand notice [original]

Ex.A3             11.06.2013    Letter addressed by the opposite parties to the complainant                                   [Photostat copy]

Ex.A4 26.06.2013    Permanent receipt issued by the opposite parties [original]

Ex.A5 29.06.2013    Letter issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant                                                    [original]

Ex.A6                                     Receipt issued by the opposite parties                [original ]

For opposite parties:         NIL

Sd/- xxxx                                                                                                          Sd/- xxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT