Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/53/2017

R.Revathi, W/o R.Rajendra Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Divisional Engineer (Rural), APSPDCL - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Venkat

13 Apr 2018

ORDER

     Filing Date: 11-08-2017            Order Date: 13-04-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M.Ramakrishnaiah, President

    Smt.T.Anitha, Member

FRIDAY THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

C.C.No.53/2017

Between

Rudrapati Revathi, W/o. Rudrapati Rajendra Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 46 years, Cultivation, residing at

Vankayalapativaripalle Village, Pulicherla Mandal,

Chittoor District (Aadhaar No. 431394075342, Mobile

No. 9912942262).                                                            … Complainant

 

And

1. The Divisional Engineer (Rural),

           APSPDCL, Old Tiruchanoor Road,

           Kenedy Nagar, Chittoor District.

 

2. The Assistant Engineer,

           APSPDCL,Kalluru,

           Pulicherla Mandal,

          Chittoor District.                                                    … Opposite parties

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 28.03.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, written version, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of             Smt. T. Nirmala, counsel for the complainant and Sri. P. Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed under Section 12 of  Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs: a) to direct the opposite parties to give electricity service connection for the agricultural bore-well of complainant,  b) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties c) to direct the opposite parties to pay the litigation expenses and to pass such other and further reliefs as the Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

        2. The brief averments of the complaint are:   that the complainant being an agriculturist dug a bore-well in her land in S.No. 146/6 of Devalampeta Revenue Village on 01.07.2011 and she applied for new electricity service connection on 18.07.2011 for the said bore-well by paying necessary charges of Rs.25/- vide RCRC No.154476 and submitted service agreement and later paid Rs.20,680/- by way of Demand Draft for 8 HP motor pump-set in the name of opposite party on 19.05.2012 by producing relevant records as demanded by the opposite parties. Thereafter the opposite parties did not choose to give connection. Hence the complainant got issued notice to opposite parties on 26.12.2015. In the first week of January 2016 the opposite parties have issued cement polls and required electric wires for laying electric line for giving electricity service connection in the name of the complainant. But till today the opposite parties did not choose to install the transformer. That the opposite parties have given service connection to several persons in the locality who applied subsequent to the application of the complainant. The opposite parties are acting as per the instructions of local political leaders. Since May, 2012 till date the complainant is continuously approached the opposite parties but in vain. Thus there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Due to which the complainant sustained loss in cultivation and also suffered mental agony. Hence the complaint.

        3.  The opposite party No.2 filed his written version and same was adopted by opposite party No.1 admitting that the complainant applied for agricultural service connection on 18.07.2011 by paying Rs.25/-, the authorities of APSPDCL inspected the said land and prepared estimation by opposite party No.2 on 22.02.2012 and the same was forwarded   by Assistant Divisional Engineer  on 18.06.2012 and estimate was approved by the first opposite party on the same day. The said fact was intimated by the complainant and thereafter the complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,680/- towards development and service line charges on 19.05.2012. In pursuance of the same, the authorities of APSPDCL had taken steps for supply of cement polls and electrical wires for laying electric line so as to give electrical service connection to the complainant in the month of July, 2012 itself. At this juncture, the Government of A.P. had issued orders banning the over exploitation of ground water and notified the villages which are under ban. In the said notification, the village Devalampeta is notified as Serial No.184.

         In view of the above ban, the opposite parties could not release the electrical service connection. That the opposite parties have taken steps to lay electrical lines to the complainant’s land for release of power supply in the year 2012 itself. The A.P. Water, Land and Trees Authority extended the declaration of ground water basins covering 915 villages mentioned in the annexure as “over exploited” from the date of issue of the notification till further orders.

        Under section 11 of the said Act, no well can be sunk in these areas except for public drinking purpose or hand pump for public or private drinking water purpose. For the said notification Develampeta village is also notified as over exploited. The said fact was intimated to the complainant by the opposite parties. The complainant made representation to the District Collector on 29.04.2013 and on 20.05.013 for release of power supply to the land in question. In view of the ban imposed by the Government, opposite parties could not release the connection. There is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties complaint is barred by limitation and prays the forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

        4. The complainant herself filed her evidence affidavit as PW-1 and got marked   Ex: A1 to A11. For the opposite parties RW-1 (G.Kamal Ganesh) filed evidence affidavit as RW-1 got marked Ex: B1 and B2. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

        5. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?           

             (ii)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties?        

             (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

             (iv)  To what Relief?

        6.Point No (i):-   In order to prove that, the complaint is within the limitation, the complainant has to establish that she has filed the complaint within the limitation as required Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. In order to prove this point, the complainant contending that she has filed the application for new electricity service connection for agricultural purpose on 18.07.2011 by paying Rs.25/- vide RCRC No.154476 and submitted service agreement and later the opposite parties have given estimation under Ex:B1 dt: 22.02.2012 for Rs.20,680/- i.e after 7 months. The complainant also made payment of the said amount of Rs.20,680/- under Ex:A2            dt: 19.05.2012. The Government issued G.O Ms No.32 dt:24.03.2015 and the same was  received by the opposite parties under endorsement No. SE/O/TPT/AE/COMML/    D.No.1044/15 dt: 20/04/2015. In detail the opposite parties received the said GO Ms No.32 dt: 23.04.2015, on 20.04.2015 no other G.O. referred to Ex:B2 was marked in support of the case of opposite parties.  

        When the complainant filed her application for new electricity service connection for the agricultural purpose on 18.07.2011, why the opposite parties did not give service connection till 20.04.2015 on which date the opposite parties received GO Ms. No.32. The complaint is filed on 11.08.2017. According to complainant, the opposite parties have dumped cement polls and necessary wires for laying the electrical line for the purpose of giving service connection to the bore-well of the complainant in the month of January, 2016. Complaint is filed on 11.08.2017. So the complaint is well within time. Though the opposite parties   have mentioned in their written version that they have taken steps by laying the cement polls and electrical wires in the land of complainant in the year 2012 but not in the month of January 2016, they have not filed any scrap of paper in support of their version that they have supplied cement polls and electrical wires to the complainant’s land in the year 2012. Therefore the opposite parties without taking any steps right from 18.07.2011 ignored the application of the complainant till 24.03.2015 the date of GO. Ms. No. 32 issued by the Government of AP nearly 3 years 7 months.  7.According to section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003:

      Every distribution licensee, shall, on 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 further says 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.

         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 as determined by the Appropriate Commission.

        If a distribution licensee fails to supply the electricity within the period specified in Sub-Section (1), he shall be liable to penalty which may extend to Rs.1,000/- for each day of default.

        When the Act itself specifies, that the electricity supply shall be given within one month from the date of receipt of application for any service connection to any premises or area or village. The opposite parties ought to have given supply to the complainant herein within one month from the date of application i.e. from 18.07.2011 but till 20.04.2015  i.e. until GO Ms. No. 32 has been issued by the Government on 24.03.2015 or till today electricity connection is not provided; the opposite parties slept over the matter ignoring the request of the complainant and now contending that complaint is barred by limitation; having fault with opposite party.

        In this regard, the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court and another decisions of the Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission contending that the complaint is barred by limitation.

          8.Decisions:- 2009(4)CPR 17 (SC) Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co.(Appellant) Vs. National Insurance Co. and another(Respondents):-  this decision is in respect of Insurance Claim relating to Fire accident in tobacco go down. The facts of the decision are “that the Appellant (Kandimalla Raghavaiah) engaged in tobacco business at Chelekaluripet, Guntur District, AP. They constructed go down in the premises of M/s. Kandimalla Venkateswarlu at Padripuram for storage of tobacco on 04.12.1987 the appellant took out a Fire Policy ‘C’ with the National Insurance Company – respondent No.1 (subject matter of O.P. No. 248 of 1997), in the account of Indian Bank-R2 against loss or damage by fire etc., for a period of four months from 04.12.1987 to 03.04.1988 for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- and paid a premium amount of Rs.17, 634/-. On 08.03.1988 the appellant obtained loan from respondent No.2 – Indian Bank by hypothecating the tobacco stored in the go down.

        In the intervening night of 22^nd and 23^rd March, 1988 a fire broke out in the go down, allegedly due to electrical short circuit and the entire stock of tobacco was gutted. The appellant reported the matter to the present contesting parties, i.e., both the Insurance Company and the Bank. On 24.03.1988 a surveyor was appointed by respondent No.1 who submitted hi report on 02.04.1988. The appellant filed complaint before the State Commission on 21.10.1997 (i.e. after nine years) stating that the appellant asked the Insurance Company to give ‘claim form’ as they did not give the appellant could file the complaint in 1997, the Honorable State Commission dismissed the complaint as time barred. The National Commission also dismissed the appeal hence, the case before Honorable Supreme Court. The Honorable Supreme Court was pleased to dismissed the appeal observing that the stand of  R2- the Bank, in the counter-affidavit is that suit for recovery of Rs.3.76 crores has already been filed and it is pending. Their lordships further observed in para 13 of the decision that:

          “ The term “cause of action” is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but it is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue.

        “ Cause of Action” means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. “ Cause of Action means the cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. (2009 (4) CPR 17 (SC) Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. Vs. National Insurance Company and another).

          “Cause of action” is discussed and defined as every fact, which it would be necessary to prove if traversed in order to support his right to the judgment of the court. It does not comprise every evidence which is necessary to prove each fact. But every fact which is necessary to be proved

          9. The Honorable Supreme Court in the decision referred supra, further observed that in the context of limitation with referring to a fire insurance policy and undoubtedly the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.

        The fire accident in respect of Kandimalla Raghavaiah’s case was took out in the intervening night of 22^nd and 23^rd March, 1988. On 24.03.1988 a surveyor was appointed by respondent No.1-Insurance Company, who submitted his report on 02.04.1988. On 23.03.1988 i.e. the date of accident, R2 – Bank lodged the FIR against the appellant firm and its partners resulting in filing of Criminal Case No. 72 of 1988 under Sections 380,423,436,457,484 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC Inter alia, alleging that they had intentionally set fire to the tobacco stock. The said case was ended in acquittal before the Supreme Court on 09.05.1992. On 06.11.1992 the appellant asked for the claim form from the Insurance Company (R1). Having failed to get any response, on 26.10.1995 issued a legal notice to respondent No.1. On 04.01.1996, the appellant again asked for clam forms but still there was no response. Ultimately on 21.03.1996 the Insurance Company replied to the legal notice, denying the factum of fire and refused to issue the claim form on the ground that the claim had become “time barred”.

         On 21.10.1997 the appellant filed the complaint before the Commission. The Lordships held that complaint is filed about 9 years after the cause of action. So it is clearly time barred.

         10. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied another decision reported in 2009 (2) CPR 35 (NC) Chandigarh Housing Board Vs Krishnan Kumar Goel, Advocate and others. This decision is in respect of delay in allotment of land and to finalization of Zoning plan in favour of the Punjab and Haryana High Court advocates Co-operative House Building Society Limited by the appellant Chandigarh Housing Board.

         The brief facts of the decision are that the Chandigarh Housing Board filed these appeals against the common order dt; 20.12.2002 passed by the State Commission Union Territory, Chandigarh come in complaint case No.11 of 2002 filed by 35 complainants and C.C.No.33/2002 filed by 30 persons who were members of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Advocates Housing Building Co-Operative Society Limited having a membership of 241, alleging deficiency in service on part of the Housing Board on several counts and seeking different reliefs. One of the allegation of deficiency made by the complainants is that though the Society had deposited the necessary amount for allotment of land with the Housing Board in the year 1992-1993, the Housing Board finalized the zoning plan only in October 1996 and only there after the possession of the allotted land could be taken. The Housing Board resisted the complaint denying the deficiency on their part and inter alia pleading that the complaint was filed by concealing material facts in regard to taking over of the possession by the then President of the Society on 28.12.1994 and thereafter it was owing to the dispute in regard to the name and number of members of the Society which was subject matter in a civil writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and soon after the decision of the said writ petition, action was taken to allot additional land as also to finalize the zoning plan within a reasonable period without any delay. The State Commission partly allowed the complaint directing the Board to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amounts deposited by the respective complainants in both the cases from the date of respective deposits till the date of sanction of the zoning plan by holding that there was delay in the sanction of zoning plan due to which the complainants were prevented from submitting their site plans for construction of the flats. Aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission the Housing Board filed appeal. Their Lordships National Commission held that “In this case the affidavit by the S.K. Setia responsible officer from the Architect Department satisfactorily explained the reasons why the sanction of the zonal plan was delayed after allotment of land measuring 44334.49sq.yds. to the complainant’s society. The Honorable National Commission observed that the cause of action for filing complaint had arisen sometime in the year 1995 and 1996 when according to the complainants there was delay on the part of the appellant-Board and the Chandigarh Administration in sanctioning the zonal plan or latest by the year 1998 when possession of land was taken. Therefore, the complaints could have been filed up till the year 1999 or 2000. The complaints in this case were filed in the year 2002, without explaining any circumstances why the complaint could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Their Lordships further held that the question of limitation should be considered seriously at the stage of complaint and allow the appeal setting aside the orders of the State Commission.

        11. In the case on hand, the complainant filed application for sanction of new electricity service connection for agricultural purpose to the bore-well dug in her land in survey No.146/6 on Devalampeta Revenue Village on 18.07.2011 by paying necessary charges of Rs.25/- vide RCRC No. 154476 and submitted service agreement to opposite parties. The opposite parties have given estimation under Ex:B1 dt: 22.02.2012 (7 months after application). The opposite parties are collected estimation amount of Rs.20,680/- from the complainant under Ex:A2 on 19.05.2015. But the opposite parties did not provide service connection till date. On 24.03.2015 i.e. about a period of 3 years 8 months after the application for connection the Government issued GO Ms.No. 32 dt: 24.03.2015. Now the opposite parties stating that they could not provide service connection to the complainant in view of GO Ms. No.32 of 2015. Prior to 2015 there were no G.Os including the Devalampeta Village as over exploited village. Therefore, there is delay on part of the opposite parties for a period of 3 years and 8 months in not providing new electricity service connection to the complainant. The complainant contending specifically that after collecting the estimation amount of Rs.20,680/- from the complainant the opposite parties have dumped some cement polls and wires required for laying the electrical line in the month of January 2016 but the same contention was denied by the opposite parties by stating that they have supplied the cement polls and wires required for laying the electrical line in the year 2012 itself, but not in the month of January, 2016.  Therefore, the opposite parties are alleging that the complaint is barred by limitation.

     12. The opposite parties received the application in the year 2011 and issued the estimation in 2012 about 7 months after the application. But they did not provide the service connection till today. Having kept quiet for a considerable period of 3 years 8 months till the GO Ms.No. 32 of 2015 was issued by the Government on 24.03.2015 and now they are taking advantage of the said G.O. and contending that the complaint is barred by limitation. As per Sec 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 the service connection is to be provided within 30 days from the date of application for new service connection. I think that the opposite parties very much aware of the said provision but, intentionally did not follow the said provision. The complainant also approached the District Collector for obtaining the service connection. Since there was delay on part of the opposite parties. Thus the facts of the above decisions, relied on by the learned counsel for opposite parties are quite different from that of the facts of the case on hand, as such, with much obedience to their Lordships of Supreme Court and National Commission we have to state that the facts of the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

        13. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in IV (2005) CPJ 1 National Commission) Jaipur Vidyuth Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Lila Ram: The facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant Lila Ram had applied for electrical connection for agricultural purpose on 12.07.1993 under General category for which he deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to take benefit of  a scheme of the petitioner Board. At the connection was not given have been after lapse of almost three years. In those circumstances the complaint was filed before the District Forum which allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to sanction connection to the complainant.

         Against the order of the District Forum the petitioner, filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of District Forum and held that the appellant should give the benefit of notification dt: 05.01.1996 to the respondent also, at par with those in whose cases demand was raised at relevant time and benefit of this notification was given. The case of the present, respondent would be treated at par with the cases of those persons, but the case should not be treated as a precedent in such matters. The appellant would arise the demand accordingly and would deliver such demand to the respondent within a period of one month from today failing which this appeal would be deemed to have been dismissed. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the National Commission. The petitioner relied upon a department’s notification dt: 05.01.1996 contending that since no demand was raised on the ground of non-feasibility, they could not be directed to give the connection, now considering the complainant at par with others who had been given the connection earlier. The Honorable National Commission held that the notification referred to have been issued much after the application for getting connection under the then prevelant  scheme. The fact that sum un-declared/ invisible target had been achieved under the scheme could not be made a ground for not giving the connection to the complainant. The complainant had applied in 1993 and it was now 2005 and it was a pity that system like the electric board floats the scheme, accepts money and yet does not render service. Such systems need to introspect as to what harm they are doing to their image. The National Commission further held that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission, which had sufficiently protected the interest of the petitioner by observing that the cases could not be treated as precedent in such other matters. The Commission was of the view that there was no merit in this revision petition, hence, dismissed.

         14. I am also relying on another decision reported in 111 2005 CPJ 35 (SC) Punjab Electricity Board Limited Vs ZoraSingh and others:  facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants were agriculturists filed applications to obtain supply of electricity energy. The Board asked them to deposit the security amount. Despite depositing of security amount and compliance with other formalities, electrical energy was not supplied to the respondents/ Complainants. The respondents also spent a huge amount on construction Kotha and making other arrangements for obtaining supply of electrical energy. Aggrieved complainants filed complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on part of the Board. The District Forum found the Board guilty of deficiency in service and directed the board to give the connection to the complainants within  the period specified therein and also awarded compensation. The Board preferred appeals on the ground that it was obligated to supply electric energy to the applicants maintaining the order of  seniority , in view of Regulation 24 of the Sales Manual. The said appeals were dismissed. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith Revision Petitions were filed by the Electricity Board. The National Commission while upholding the claim of the Board that the order of seniority should be maintained in the matter of supply of electrical energy, directed it to release connections to all applicants by 31.03.2004. It also directed payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the amounts deposited by the complainants and award compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to them. Costs of Rs.2,000/- was also directed to be paid. The board filed civil appeals before the Supreme Court.

         15. The Honorable Supreme Court held that the Board, is a statutory authority. It is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As a state, the Board was expected to discharge its statutory functions within a reasonable time having regard to the fact that it undertakes an important public utility service. Its actions besides being governed by the Electricity (supply) Act and the regulations framed thereunder, must also fulfill the test of reasonableness as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Lordships further held that section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 mandates a licensee to grant electricity connection to an applicant. Although, the said provision was not applicable so far as the Board is concerned, it was bound to supply electrical energy. The provisions contained therein also envisage supply of electric energy within a reasonable time. The Board being a deemed licensee under the Indian Electricity Act having been constituted in terms of Section 5 of the Act ordinarily could not  be heard to say that it was not in a position to supply electricity to a class of consumers, having invited  applications from them.  And their Lordships further held that the commission has rightly found that the Board having not made itself ready to supply electrical energy to the agriculturists unjustly enriched itself with the money deposited by the complainants without rendering any service in return. It was evident that the Board wanted to fill its coffer with the amount of security deposits and other deposit made by the prospective buyers of the electricity. That the Honorable Supreme Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the directions issued by the National Commission were modified to the extent that instead and  the rate of interest @ 12% p.a., the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. and instead of compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- in each, the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in each was directed to be awarded and dismissed the appeals. The facts of the above decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Thus we are of the opinion that the complaint is well within the time and it is not barred by limitation. Accordingly this point is answered.

        16.Point No(ii):-  to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant has made an application for a new electricity service connection for agricultural purpose on18.07.2011 by paying Rs.25/- vide RCRC No.154476 and submitted service agreement admittedly. The opposite parties have given estimation under Ex;B1 on 22.02.2012 for Rs.20,680/- about 8 months after the application of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made representations to the District Collector, Chittoor on 20.05.2013 and on 29.04.2013 under Ex:A3 and A4 respectively but the opposite parties did not provide electricity service connection. Admittedly the opposite parties also supplied cement polls and electric wires necessary for laying the electric line to the land of complainant. The opposite parties disputing the date of supply of cement polls and electric wires as per complainant, the said cement polls and electric wires shown in Ex:A11 were placed in her land in the month of January, 2016. But the opposite parties contending that those cement polls and electric wires was dumped in the land of complainant in the year 2012 itself  but not in the month January, 2016.  If the opposite parties have laid the cement polls and electric wires in the year 2012 in the field of complainant; Subsequently why the opposite parties have maintained silence till 2015. When the act itself clearly shows that the electric department has mandatory duty to provide electric supply within a month from the date of application for the purpose as contemplated Under Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. As the opposite parties have collected the estimation amount, cause of action survives till the service connection is given.

       17.  Having received the application from the complainant for new electricity connection for the agricultural purpose on 18.07.2011 along with necessary fee of Rs.25/- under Ex:A1, and having collected estimation amount of Rs.20,680/- on 19.05.2012 under Ex:A2 from the complainant, in spite of the representations made by the complainant to the District Collector, Chittoor under Ex:A3 and A4 dt: 20.05.2013 and 29.04.2013 respectively, Why the opposite parties could not provide electricity connection to the bore-well of the complainant when there was no any prohibition from Government or from the department of APSPDCL, till 2015. The opposite parties earlier referred (under Ex:B2) dt: GO.Ms.No. 409, TR and RD (RDII) department dt: 30.11.2010 and the circular from the Commissioner dt: 23.09.2014 were not at all disclosing that the Devalampeta Village was included in the “over exploited area”. It appears that the opposite parties intentionally avoided supply of electricity connection to the land of complainant even in GO.Ms.No.32 dt: 24.03.2015 in which the Devalampeta Village was included in the “over exploited area” under serial No.184. There was no prohibition against the supply of electricity connection for the lands over which electricity connection is sought for, prior to the G.O under Ex:B2. In the notification attached to G.O. 32 dt: 24.03.2015 it was mentioned that in Sub-Section 3 of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Authority that, “no well can be sunk in those areas except for public drinking purpose or hand pump for public or private drinking water purposes under the provision Section 27 of the said Act no sand mining can be permitted in those areas until further orders”. There is no directions to the APSPDCL that they should not give electricity connection to those specified areas or any other areas notified or otherwise. The GO.Ms.No.32 of 2015 was received by the opposite parties on 20.04.2015 only under endorsement No. SE/O/TPT/AE/COMML/ F/D.No.1044/15 dt: 20.04.2015 but this G.O. was not supplied to the complainant, simply the opposite parties contending that they have informed the same to the complainant without there being any proof. Having slept over the matter for mere three and half year after receiving the application from the complainant without any latches on part of the complainant, now the opposite parties contending that the complaint is barred by limitation. For the latches on part of the opposite parties and for deficiency in service and gross negligence on part of the opposite parties, the complainant should not be made scap-goat. Contents of complainant and the evidence affidavits of PW-1(complainant) coupled with the Ex:A1 to A11 and Ex:B1 and B2, the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. In view of the decisions reported in IV (2005) CPJ 1 (NC) Jaipur Vidyuth Vitran Nigam Limited Vs. Leela Ram and another decision reported in III (2005) CPJ 35 (SC) in Punjab State Electricity Board Limited Vs. Zorasingh and Others.  The opposite parties cannot say the complaint is barred by limitation by taking advantage of GO.Ms.No.32/2015 which was issued after three and half years of application of complainant. The opposite parties have no right to avoid supply of electricity connection to the complainant. By virtue of above two decisions and the pleadings and evidence on behalf of the complainant it is established by the complainant that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on part of opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

        18.Point No(iii):    to answer this point we have to state that it is the opposite parties who made the complainant deprived of her right from receiving electricity connection as a consumer  though she paid necessary fee and estimated amount to the opposite parties in the year 2011 and 2012 itself. But it is clear case of violation of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 24 of Indian Electricity Act by the opposite parties. Therefore they are liable for paying the compensation for the deficiency in service. In view of the GO.Ms.No.32 of 2015 dt: 24.03.2015 under which the Devalampeta Revenue Village was declared as “over exploited area”. The complainant may not get electric connection for her Bore-well subsequent to the GO.Ms.No.32. Under the above circumstances we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.20,705/- (Rs.20,680+Rs.25) with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment of estimated amount i.e. from 19.05.2012 till realization and also entitled for compensation for deficiency in service  on part of the opposite parties and costs of the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

       19.Point (iv):-  In view of our discussion on points 1 to 3 we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that the complaint is well within the limitation as the opposite parties failed to establish that they have dumped all the cement polls and electric wires in the field of complainant in the year 2012 by producing any sort of evidence in support of their contests. As the complainant specifically mentioned in her complaint and also in her evidence affidavit and in written arguments that the opposite parties have supplied the cement polls and electric wires in the month of January, 2016 the complaint is well within the limitation. That the complainant also established that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation and costs. Accordingly complaint is to be allowed.

        In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to refund Rs. 20,705/- (Rs.20,680+Rs.25) (Rupees twenty thousand seven hundred and five only) to the complainant with interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of payment i.e. 19.05.2012 till realization. The opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant for deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall also carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 13^th day of April, 2018.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                        Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                        President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1: Rudrapati Revathi (Chief Affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1: G. Kamal Ganesh (Chief Affidavit filed).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of payment receipt for Rs.25/-dated 18-07-2011 filed by the complainant. (S.F.No.146/6, Distribution: V.K.V.Palli No.08 920).
	Photo copy of Demand Draft for Rs.20,680/- by the complainant in the name of 1st opposite party dated 19.05.2012.
	Photo copy of representation to the District Collector, Chittoor by the complainant. Dt: 20.05.2013.
	Photo copy of representation to the District Collector. Dt: 29.04.2013.
	Office copy of Legal Notice dated 26.12.2015, Postal acknowledgements dated 31.12.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice dated 17.03.2017 with postal receipts Dt: 17.03.2017 and acknowledgement dated 18.03.2017 of 1st opposite party.
	Returned regd. Postal cover (Dt: 28.03.2017) with acknowledgement received by the District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati on  dated 11.08.2017 of 2nd opposite party.
	Office copy of Legal Notice dated 02.06.2017, Postal receipts dated 02.06.2017 and acknowledgements dated 11.08.2017.
	Original copy of Aadhaar Card bearing No.4313 9407 5342 of the Complainant.
	Original copy of E-Pass Book stands in the name of the complainant.
	Original copy of Photograph consists of the polls laid down in the complainant’s fields dated January, 2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Estimation Order given by Additional Assistant Engineer, Operation APSPDCL, Kallur. Estimation No. A-0034-05-04-11-01-0088, Dt: 22.02.2012.
	Photo copy of Government Order, G.O.Ms.No.32 issued by Panchayatraj     and Rural Development (RDII) Department, Dt: 24.03.2015 submitted by the Opposite Party.

      Sd/-                                                                                                   President.

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant,

                   2) The Opposite parties 1 and 2.