Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/60/2016

Syed Ahamad Hussain, S/o S.Masthan Saheb - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Electrical Revenue Officer, APSPDCL - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Hussain, N.S.Latip Basha

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  06-06-2016

Date of disposal  :  12-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Thursday, this the  12th day of    OCTOBER, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                          

C.C.No.60/2016        

 

S.A.Hussain, (Syed.Ahamad Hussain)

S/o.S.Masthan Saheb,

Plot No.6,7

Kresent Park,

Main Road,

Madaraja Gudur,

Kakupalli Bit-II,

Nellore Rural Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                             …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

The Electrical Revenue Officer,

APSPDCL,

Nellore Rural,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                              … Opposite party

 

This matter coming on  10-10-2017  before us for final hearing in the presence of  S.R.Hussain, Advocate for the complainant and                           Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate for   the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (By Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President)

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the opposite party to provide electrical service connection to the complainant house situated in Kresent Park, Kakupalli bit-2  Village Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District situated in plot No.687, grant compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and grant such other relief and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

        The complainant submits that the developers by name Kresent Park had a layout in Sy.No.242, 261/A, 261/A, 261/B, 244/A, 244/B, 245 in an extent of 9.29 acres in Kakupalli Bit-II in Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District and divided the total extent into plots and the complainant  being a senior citizen having retired from service with a dream of having his own house ventured to purchase the plot in Kresent Park layout in Kakupalli Bit-II Village in Nellore Rural Mandal. 

3.     The complainant further submits that as per the terms and conditions as agreed with the developer.  The developer as per the said terms and conditions the developer has to provide electricity to the layout.  But, the developer gave evasive replies, as per the developer is giving evasive replies, the complainant being educated and retired employee approached the opposite party with a request to provide electricity connection to his house.  The opposite party directed the complainant to pay the sum of Rs.5,225/- for providing electricity connection accordingly, the complainant paid the amount in the year, 2013.

4.    The opposite party having received the amount in the year 2013 and failed to provide the electricity connection till to the month February, 2016, inspite of several requests made by the complainant with the opposite party.  Finally, the complainant got issued a requisition requesting to provide the electricity for his house on 23-03-2016.  It was duly served on the opposite party on 28-03-2016.  But, no action was taken upon the request made by the complainant.  The complainant being a retired government official having known the difficulties of the fellow Government servants once again issued reminder on 30-04-2016 which was also duly served on the 03-05-2016 and no action was initiated by the opposite party.  The acts of the opposite party are “deficiency in service” on the part of the opposite party after receiving due payment for the services to be provided, hence, the complaint submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

5.  The opposite party filed counter denying the averments of the complaint with the following averments that:-

   the opposite party is not the necessary party to the complainant and the opposite party did not receive any consideration from the complainant for giving electricity connection to the complainant’s house and giving electricity connection, maintenance of lines and supply the electricity and duty of the technical staff and the opposite party is to receive the electricity charges from the consumers and the opposite party is not the necessary party and the opposite party submits that to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party.

 

   6.   On behalf of the complainant, chief affidavit of complainant is received as   

         the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked.

 

   7.  On behalf of the opposite party, the chief affidavit of opposite party

        received as the evidence of RW1 and on behalf of the opposite party

        no documents were marked.

 

   8.  Written arguments on behalf of the complainant filed.

 

   9.   Written arguments on behalf of the opposite party not filed.

 

   10.  Arguments on behalf of both parties heard.

 

  11.  Perused the written arguments on behalf of the complainant.

 

  12.  Now, the points for consideration are:

        1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against

            the opposite parties 1 and 2 under section 12 of Consumer

            Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opposite

            party is maintainable?

       2)  To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

13. POINT NO.1  The learned counsel for  the complainant submits relying upon the written arguments that the complainant purchased a plot in Kresent Park, Kakupalli Bit-2 village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and submitted an application to the opposite party by depositing a  sum of Rs.5,225/- in the year 2013 for giving electricity service connection to the house of the complainant  but  issuance of legal notice the opposite party did not provide the electricity service connection to the house of the complainant, which is situated in Kresent Park, Kakupalli  Bit-2 village.  The complainant was filed this complaint against the opposite party to direct the opposite party to give electricity service connection to the house of the complainant and grant compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-   for causing mental agony to the complainant and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 14.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party is no way concerned to provide electricity service connection to the house of the complainant, as the complainant failed to implead proper parties in the case, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable and submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

 15.    In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for the both parties and as seen from the complaint, the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party which shown as APSCPDCL.   The opposite party has nothing to do about granting the electricity connection to the public but the duty of the opposite party is to receive the amount paid by the consumers towards the electricity consumption charges and he is no way concerned for giving electricity connection to the house of the complainant, as the complainant did not file complaint against the proper parties.   We are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party is not maintainable, as the complainant failed to implead the proper parties in the complaint.

16.   The case of the complainant is that he paid the required fee to the APSPDCL and they failed to provide electricity service connection to the house of the complainant and hence he filed this complaint against the opposite party for directing the opposite party to give electricity service connection to his house and further submitted by relying upon the decisions reported

In

      Travancore Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kerala City Electricity Board

      Reported in 1997(1)CPJ 17(NC) and

In

     M/s. Geetha Powers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. District Judge, Shaharanpur

     Reported in AIR 2000 Alahabad 58.

        

      Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble High Court of Alahabad held that the consumer cannot claim any right with regard to lying line.  Following the above decisions, we are of the opinion that this Forum has no right to give such a right direction to the opposite party for the relief paid by the complainant.  By relying upon the above discussion and the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and has to be dismissed.  In view of the above said discussion, we answer this point against the complainant. 

 

17. POINT NO.2:  In view of our answering on point No.1 is against the complainant and infavour of the opposite party, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant has to be dismissed.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of OCTOBER, 2017.    

 

                    Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-                                                                   

              MEMBER                                                                  PRESIDENT

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

10-11-2016

:

S.A.Hussain, S/o.S.Masthan Saheb, Muslim, aged about 64 years, retired employee and residing at plot No.6,7 Kresent Park, Main Road, Madaraja Gudur, Kakupalli Bit-II, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

RW1

17-11-2016

Bobbili Sureskha D/o.Krishnaiah, Hindu, aged about 38 years and working as Asst. Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Nellore Rural, APSPDCL Ltd., SPSR Nellore District.

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	-	:	Brochure of layout.
Ex.A2	12-07-2013	:	Photostat copy of deposit receipt for Rs.5,225/- bearing No.2595536 issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A3	-	:	Photostat copy of application fee receipt bearing No.1899209 for Rs.25/-
Ex.A4	23-03-2016	:	Requisition letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant along with one registered post receipt.
Ex.A5	28-03-2016	:	Acknowledgment from the opposite party.
Ex.A6	-	:	Reminder letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant along with one registered post receipt.
Ex.A7	03-05-2016	:	Acknowledgement from the opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY                     

 

NIL-

 

                

                                                                              Id/-

                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

1) Sri S.R.Hussain, Advocate, Nellore.

 

2) Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, “Sreerama Nilayam”

    1^st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

 

Date when order copies were issued: