FA.No.308/2008 against CC.No.9/2007 District Consumer Forum, West Godavari District at Eluru.

Between:

1.The Chairman and Managing Director,

   APEPDCL, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Operation,

   APEPDCL, Eastern Street, Visakhapatnam.

3.The Divisional Engineer, Operation, Powerpet,

   Eluru, W.G.Dist.

4.The Asst.Divisional Engineer (Operations)

5.The Assistant Engineer, Operations, Bhimadole,

…Appellants/Opp.Parties.

And

Varalakshmi Enterprises,

Rep. by M.P.Bhimala Dasaradha Ramayya,

S/o.Paleswara Rao, Aged 34 years,

Occ: Business, R/o.Eluru, West Godavari District.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellants       :  M/s.O.Manohar Reddy & A.Jaya Raju.

Counsel for the Respondent     :  Mr.K.Ranga Rao.

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY,

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties, the Electricity Board, against the order of the District Consumer Forum directing it to issue service connection to the complainant’s premises, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that it is firm represented by its Managing Partner.  It purchased 25 cents of land from one Siribathina Thrimurthulu for establishing ice factory on 6.7.2006 for Rs.1,34,000/-, vide sale deed Ex.A.1.  When he made application for sanction of new service connection, the Electricity Board directed him to pay Rs.3  Accordingly the same was deposited by way of six pay orders drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Eluru on 27.11.2006.  He also submitted LT agreement.  While so, on 24.1.2007 the Electricity Board issued a demand notice directing him to pay Rs.1  The said demand notice is illegal.  In fact there was no earlier service connection.  In fact the Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operations issued a letter mentioning that there on the said service connection.  Again issuing demand notice is illegal.  Therefore, he sought for a new service connection besides compensation and costs.

 3.        The Electricity Board resisted the case.  It denied each and every allegation made in the complaint.  It alleged that the complainant had failed to prove that there for the earlier service connection.  While directing him to deposit the amount, it was clearly mentioned that before releasing the L.T supply, the complainant had to observe the departmental rules.  The complainant having agreed cannot turn round and question the demand notice.  In fact S.Trimurthulu, the Managing Partner of Sri Lakshmi Ice Plant obtained service connection No.240 of Bhimadole.  He was liable to pay Rs.1  The Department provided the earlier service connection provided he would pay the amount due.  Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7, while the Electricity Board filed Ex.B.1.

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record allowed the complaint directing the Electricity Board (opposite parties 1 to 5) to issue service connection sought by the complainant, besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

6.         Aggrieved by the said order, the Electricity Board preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in its correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that there was earlier service connection to an Ice plant, and an amount of Rs.1  It had failed to see that by virtue of General Terms and Conditions of Supply the demand notice was issued against the complainant, which ought to have been upheld in view of the fact that the amount due was not paid.  It is for the complainant to verify whether there .  Merely because there was a mistake, at the time of issuance of Ex.A.2, wherein the amount of Rs.1,47,485/-, which is due from the customer, has not been mentioned, the same do not disentitle the appellants from making a demand for payment of the amount at the time of connection.  Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed.

7.         The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts?

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant, a firm represented by its Managing Partner purchased 25 cents of land under Ex.A.1 registered sale deed dated 6.7.2006 for installing an ice factory.  When he submitted an application to the appellants viz. Electricity Board, which in turn directed him to pay Rs.3,05,860/-, vide Ex.A.2 basing on which the complainant paid the amount under Ex.A.3 issued by the Electricity Board.

9.         We may also mention that the very Accounts Officer issued Ex.A.7 mentioning that there   At column 9 he mentioned that “No Dues”.  Contrarily, the appellants Board issued a demand notice for Rs.3  Impugning the said notice, the complaint was filed.  Evidently, a perusal of Ex.A.1 shows that the complainant had purchased 25 cents of land in order to install   The Electricity Board also agreed to provide electricity connection to it basing on which he paid amounts under Ex.A.3.   Later the Department served a notice alleging that the earlier consumer had committed default in payment of Rs.1  In fact the Electricity Board admits at para 11 of its counter that the pay back period agreement entered with S.Thrimurthulu was with the head office of the opposite parties.  Having stated so, it did not choose to file the said agreement.  It did not give any reason as to why the said agreement was not filed.  Apart from it undoubtedly the Board would be having accounts pertaining to the earlier service connection.  Not even a single document was filed in order to prove that there was earlier service connection to the ice factory and the said customer had committed   When the board failed to produce documents an adverse inference has to be drawn.  There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the earlier customer was due to an amount of Rs.1     The District Forum after considering the   We have no reason to differ.   We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, however, no costs.      

PRESIDENT

MEMBER

DtVvr.