APCPDCL, Singareni Bhawan
This is a discussion on APCPDCL, Singareni Bhawan within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 614 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C. NO. 18 OF 2007 DISTRICT ...
- 09-01-2009, 08:25 PM #1
APCPDCL, Singareni Bhawan
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No. 614 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C. NO. 18 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM RANGA REDDY
Smt B.Vijaya Reddy W/o B.Krishna Reddy
aged 35 years, Occ: Business R/o 2-2-647/28
A N D
1. J.Pramod Kumar Reddy @ Pramod Kumar
@Pramod Kumar Reddy Aged 35 yrs,
Occ: Pvt. Spot Billing Contract Labour
APCPDCL, Maheswaram, Ranga Reddy Dist.
2. U.Shanker Rao, Age 42 years,
Occ: Jr.Lineman(Operations) APCPDCL
Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy Dist.
3. S.V.Subba Rao, Aged 45 years,
Occ: A.A.E. (Operations) O/o APCPDCL
Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy Dist.
4. S.Sunil Kumar, aged 42 years,
Occ: ADE/OPE-II/RR South,
O/o APCPDCL, Maheshwaram
Ranga Reddy District
5. The Chairman & Managing Director
APCPDCL, Singareni Bhawan
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondents 1,2 & 4 Returned
Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 5 Sri O.Manohar Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
FRIDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
The unsuccessful complaint is the appellant. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy passed on 8.4.2008 in C.C.No.18 of 2007, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The facts in a narrow compass leading to the filing of the complaint are that the appellant is the subscriber of the respondents having been provided with electric service connection bearing No.2330-201(CAT-II) to her petrol bunk at Thukkuguda village, Maheswaram Mandal Ranga Reddy District. The meter provided to the premises of the appellant was burnt. On being required to pay an amount of Rs.1,850/- towards burnt meter charges, the appellant had paid the amount to the respondent no.3 and a new service meter was installed replacing the burnt meter. The appellant claims that the respondents charged Rs.3,00,725/- towards assessment and Rs.52,000/- towards compounding fee. The criminal proceedings against the appellant was closed on 2.5.2006. It is the grievance of the appellant that excess amount was charged in spite of opting for a new meter.
The respondents no.2 to 5 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stating that the recorded consumption was low compared to the connected load and nature of utilization of supply, a theft energy case was registered against the appellant herein and basing on MRT test report dated 28.4.2006 and consumption pattern report, a notice was issued for an amount of Rs.6,01,148/- of which the appellant had paid only an amount of Rs.3,00,725/-. As it is a case of theft of energy u/s 135 and 138 of Electricity Act, 2003, a Special Court only is competent to entertain the complaint.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the complaint was dismissed for default. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the matter be remanded by providing opportunity to both parties to proceed with the cases. An order on merits of the case does serve the purpose of justice and equity. The complainant was dismissed without the complainant being heard. Therefore, we feel it a fit case to be remanded. We do not express any opinion in regard to the merits of the case including the issue of maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Therefore without going into the merits of the case we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to be remanded to the District Forum for denova enquiry.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District forum dated 8.4.2008. The District Forum is directed to give opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and pronounce orders on merits within three months. Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 16.6.2009 without insisting on fresh notice. No costs.
- 02-18-2010, 12:01 PM #2Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 26 OF 2009
Parveen Sultana W/o Syed Abrar Ahmed Hashmi, Aged about 32
Years, Occ: Tailor, R/o .H.No.(New), Basheerbagh locality,
Nalgonda Town and District.
1) The Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL, Nalgonda.
2) Chief Managing Director, APCPDCL, Mint Compound,
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 11-01-2010, in the presence of Sri Rayeece M.A.Khadir, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri A.Suresh Babu, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
O R D E R
BY SRI K.VINODH REDDY, MALE MEMBER
1. It is the say of the complainant that she obtained a domestic
Service Connection from the Opposite Party No.1, vide No.4010336085 and paying the electricity charges regularly. She is a poor woman, working as a tailor apart from her husband Mr.S.A.A.Hashmi, who is
- 2 -
working as Chaffer (Car Driver) since five months with the Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Suryapet of Nalgonda District to brought up their two minor daughters.
She further says that the Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL, Nalgonda, Mr.Karunakar had offered her husband to drive his car to which her husband has refused, keeping that in his mind as a vengeance Mr.Karunakar had instructed the A.E., Mr.Hanumanthu to disconnect the power supply to her house though the regular bills were paid without pending. On the instructions of DE and AE, the Lineman Mr.Yadagiri had disconnected the power supply illegally and arbitrarily on 30-05-2009 to her house without giving any notice.
As the bill for the month of April, 2008 was not provided to her she had enquired about it and paid an amount of Rs.41/- towards electricity charges on dated 14-05-2009, vide Receipt No.955222, after that the Opposite Party had issued a bill No.867, dated 15-05-2008 for an amount of Rs.447/- to which she wrote a letter on dated 28-05-2008 to the officials of the Opposite Party, where they collected Rs.350/- deducting Rs.41/-. After collecting the entire amount from her they disconnected the power supply on dated 30-05-2009 which is a breach of promise and deficiency in service on their part.
For that her husband immediately contacted the DE, Mr.Karunakar, ADE, Mr.Vidyasagar, but the restoration of the power was not done by DE Mr.Karunakar, ADE Mr.Vidyasagar, and AE Mr.Hanumanthu, instead of that instructed the lineman Mr.Yadagiri to
- 3 -
shift the main power line (three phase) located elsewhere to pass over the roof of their house which was done by him, to reshift this three phase line from over their roof lineman had demanded Rs.5,000/- saying that the amount will be distributed among the other officers.
The house in which they are living at present was constructed under Indiramma Housing Scheme which is launched by the State Government, for that they are entitled for the exemption of customer charges and ED charges in each bill.
On the intervening night of 10-06-2009 and 11-06-2009 the main three phase power line which is passing over the roof of their house broke and fell on the roof resulting in fire which was extinguished due to rain otherwise the lives of the family members would have been in danger which were saved by the gracefulness of rain and wind on that fateful night. In fear of life threat they are forced to call upon their neighbours, relatives, friends and well wishers to stay at their home on that night.
For the above said reason her husband had telephoned AE Mr.Hanumanthu (Mobile No.9440814325) and Lineman Mr.Yadagiri (Mobile No.9948855640), the response from their phone was ‘either switched off or out of calling area’. As there was no response from them her husband contacted the DE Mr.Karunakar (Mobile No.9440813517) at about 1-30 a.m., to which the DE’s response was “shall I come to do the work” which is dereliction of duty and gross negligence.
For the above said reasons her husband had written a letter on dated 11-06-2009 at about 9-45 p.m., to the Opposite Party (the superior
- 4 -
master of Administrative Hierarchy of APCPDCL) and his subordinate officers at Nalgonda, namely Superintending Engineer (SE) and Divisional Engineer (DE) which bore no fruits. Further the DE Mr.Karunakar asked them that her husband should leave the job with the office of the DE, Suryapet and join him as his personal driver to have peace to her family.
On dated 10-06-2009 the Lineman Mr.Yadagiri in the name of restoring power supply where his acts caused failure of ceiling fan and bulbs which costed her to a tune of Rs.5,000/- loss.
For the above said reasons she prays that:
a) To restore the power supply to her house.
b) To shift the 3 phase line made to pass over her house illegally.
c) To send the bills with less customer charge and ED for each month.
d) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental distress and unjustified
Restrictions to her husband and to their minor child by putting constant psychological fear and trauma.
e) To pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and cost of stay putting
the neighbours in the others house.
f) To pay Rs.5,000/- towards damaged ceiling fan and bulbs.
g) Cost of the complaint or any other orders that the Forum feels fit in the interests of justice.
2. The Opposite Party No.1 in his counter says that the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint are false and baseless stating that the complainant had constructed a house under LT line in the year 2007 where that LT line was existing since 20 years and obtained domestic service connection from that LT line.
- 5 -
The allegation of the complainant that the power supply was disconnected illegally on 30-05-2009 is false. Further the Opposite Party No.1 denies that the bill of April, 2008 was not served to the complainant which amounted Rs.41/-, admits that the bill of April, 2008 was paid on 14-05-2008 by the complainant but not on 14-05-2009 as alleged by the complainant in her complaint. Regarding the collection of Rs.350/- they had given a detailed explanation which laid to the excess billing.
He further denies that the power supply to the complainant’s house was never disconnected and the allegation made by the complainant that one of the officials had demanded Rs.5,000/- is also a false allegation where there is no proof that the complainant had called DE, ADE and Fuse off call which maintains a register for the calls from the consumers. He further accept that regarding the exemption of ED charges the allegation made by the complainant may be partly correct. Regarding the layer of electric line over the roof of the complainant is false, the broken pole was replaced on the very next day itself by the department and they did not receive any phone call from the complainant regarding braking of the pole.
As the LT line was existing there since 20 years the allegations made by the complainant are utterly false which are made to mislead the Forum and the sufferings explained in her complaint on that rainy day were also false where those were created for wrongful gains. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The counsel for Opposite Party No.1 had filed an Adoption Memo on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 to adopt the counter of Opposite Party
- 6 -
No.1. As there is no separate vakalath or authorization letter and
affidavit from the Opposite Party No.2 the adoption filed by him cannot be considered.
4. The complainant had filed an I.A.No.59/2009 in this complaint regarding the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to visit the spot but the counsel for the complainant had produced a letter dated 26-11-2009 which was addressed to him by the complainant along with a Memo regarding “not press” for the appointment of advocate commissioner which was accepted by this Forum.
5. The counsel for the complainant had filed affidavit of the complainant along with documents which are marked as Exs.A-1 to A-34 for proof on record and also filed written arguments. The counsel for Opposite Party No.1 had filed affidavit of Opposite Party No.1 along with written arguments and submitted the documents which are marked as Exs.B-1 to B-10 for proof on record.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or not?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim she made in her complaint or not?
3) If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled of the claim?
7. POINT No.1: It is not in dispute that the complainant had received a land occupation certificate (xerox copy) dated 11-01-2007 marked as Ex.A-1 regarding the house plot, meant for the weaker section from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), in the said certificate date is not shown but month and year shown as January 2007. She got sanction of
- 7 -
housing allotment from the State Government under Housing Corporation Limited for the year 2006-2007 marked as Ex.A-2 and constructed a new house in the year 2007 as per the (xerox copies) Exs.A-3 to A-7, where the location is not proved as per her allegations. Ex.A-8 dated 08-07-2009 is (xerox copy) estimated House Tax by the Municipality, Nalgonda, Ex.A-9 dated 20-08-2009 is a (xerox copy) Receipt No.481 issued by the Municipality, Nalgonda on receiving the house tax from the complainant, Ex.A-10 dated 26-08-2009 is a (xerox copy) Ownership Certificate issued by the Municipality, Nalgonda. Exs.A-11 and A-12 are the (xerox copies) bill and Receipt of the electricity charges pertaining to the month of April, 2008. Ex.A-13 dated 28-05-2008 is a (xerox copy) letter written to the Assistant Electrical Engineer, APCPDCL, Nalgonda regarding the entitlement of subsidy for the weaker sections by the complainant. Ex.A-14 is a (xerox copy) of the estimated intimation given by the Electricity Department for Rs.350/- on dated 30-05-2008. Exs.A-15 and A-16 which are (xerox copies) Telegrams sent on dated 01-06-2009 without receiving dates to the DE and ADE of APCPDCL, Nalgonda respectively. Ex.A-17 dated 03-06-2009 is a (xerox copy) letter written to the electricity officials by the husband of the complainant. Ex.A-18 dated 11-06-2009 is a (xerox copy) reminder letter regarding the previous letters. Exs.A-20, 21, 22 are the (xerox copies) Telegrams sent on dated 05-08-2009 without receiving dates to the SE, APCPDCL, Nalgonda, Chief Managing Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad, Joint Managing Director, APCPDCL, Hyderabad respectively regarding shifting of three phase line which is already passing over the roof of the complainant'’ house. Ex.A-23 is a (xerox copy) of Telegram dated 16-08-2009 sent to SE, APCPDCL, Nalgonda
- 8 -
without receiving date. Exs.A-24, 25, 26 and 27 are the (xerox copies) media publications without specific publishers names. Ex.A-28 dated 24-08-2009 is a (xerox copy) letter received by the complainant from the AE, Operation, APCPDCL, Nalgonda- Town III regarding the shifting of LT line. Exs.A-29 and 32 are (xerox copies) envelop covers. Ex.A-30 dated 27-08-2009 is a (xerox copy) letter sent by the complainant to the AE, Operation, APCPDCL, Nalgonda Town III. Ex.A-31 dated 29-08-2009 is a (xerox copy) of letter received by the complainant from the AE, APCPDCL, Nalgonda. Ex.A-33 is a CD. Ex.A-34 is a (xerox copy) of speed post receipts.
Ex.B-1 is an original statement given by the Municipal Councilor, Ward No.33 in the presence of witnesses. Ex.B-2 is a set of (xerox papers) of fuse off call register, maintained by APCPDCL, Nalgonda from 29-05-2009 to 07-06-2009. Ex.B-3 is a statement regarding the utility charges by the complainant under her service connection No.4010336085 from January, 2008 to July, 2009. Exs.B-5 to B-7 are true copies of statements of Consumption Records of some of the consumers over the alleged LT line from different poles. Ex.B-8 is a true copy of Consumer Master Sheet as on dated 30-09-2007. Ex.B-9 is a rough sketch line map showing the passing of LT line which existed since 1973. Ex.B-10 is a Summary Sheet of Service Connection No.4010302419 in the name of Shivalayam Temple supply given on dated 24th January, 1973. All the exhibits which are marked as Exs.B-1 to B-10 are submitted along with the affidavit of P.Hanumanthu S/o Basha Nayak who is working as Assistant Engineer, Operations, Sub-Division, APCPDCL, Nalgonda.
- 9 -
After the above said house construction the complainant had approached Opposite Party No.1 and got electricity service connection sanctioned under Consumer No.4010336085 in the year 2007 and the supply was given on dated 30-11-2007, after that there was no dispute or any allegations in between the complainant and the Opposite Parties until 30-05-2009 where the complainant had alleged that the power supply was illegally disconnected to her house by Opposite Party No.1 where it was not proved on record, as per Ex.B-2 since there is no entry about the said disconnection in the register of fuse off call maintained by Opposite Party No.1 for the purpose of complaints.
The main cause of the dispute is a live LT line passing over the roof of the complainant’s house as it was alleged that the line was shifted from elsewhere to pass over the complainant’s house on the instructions of Opposite Party No.1 on dated 02-06-2009, but on verifying the documents produced by Opposite Party No.1 which are marked as Exs.B-5 to B-10 it is clearly evident that the LT line which is passing over the complainant’s house is not laid after the construction of house by the complainant but it is lying there since nearly 36 years back as per Ex. B-9 (a rough route map) which is filed along with affidavit of Assistant Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Nalgonda-Town III where there is a clear evidence that the power supply was given to number of consumers in the year 1973 itself from that LT line for example: 1)as per Ex.B-10 power supply was given to Shivalayam Temple on dated 24-01-1973 under Service Connection No.4010302419, 2)as per Ex.B-5 power supply was given to Mr.P.Mallaiah, under Service Connection No.4010313834 on dated 10-07-1991, 3)as per Ex.B-6 power supply was given to the
- 10 -
residence of N.Latchaiah under Service Connection No.4010324290 on dated 30-11-2000, 4)as per Ex.B-7 power supply was given under the name of the Commissioner to the Municipality, Nalgonda with a load of 5 HP at Town III location on dated 01-03-2001 to a borewell which is meant for drinking water supply to the surrounding public.
As the documents produced by the complainant marked Exs.A-3 to A-7 photostat copies of Photographs showing different stages of construction of house cannot be considered as there is no affidavit or evidence of the Photographer who took those photos, it also cannot be considered that the photographs were taken at different stages of construction of the complainant’s house itself as the complainant did not prove on record that the above exhibits were of her own house.
Exs.A-15 and A-16 cannot be considered that the power supply was disconnected to the complainant’s house as there is no record of evidence that she made an approach to the concerned officer who looks after the operations in that area. Exs.A-17 and A-18 cannot be considered as it was not proved by the complainant as alleged by her that a live LT line was laid over the roof of her house after the said construction. Exs.A-20 to A-23 Telegrams cannot be considered as it was not proved that the LT line was laid after the construction of the house of the complainant and the Opposite Parties tried to shift it to other place where there is no necessity for them to do so. Exs.A-24 to A-27 cannot be considered as they are not supported by the affidavit of the publishers.
As per Ex.A-28 which is a letter sent by the Assistant Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Nalgonda Town III to the complainant in response
- 11 -
to her representation that there was heavy gear and wind on dated 11-
06-2009 which resulted in braking of electricity pole which was replaced immediately by the concerned department to restore the power connection and in that the Assistant Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Nalgonda Town III, clearly stated that if the complainant bares the charges as per departmental estimation the LT line which is passing over the roof of the complainant’s house will be shifted, because the complainant had constructed her house under the existing LT line, but it was not laid after the construction of the complainant’s house.
In the light of above discussion as there is no recorded proof that the Opposite Party No.1 had acted negligently towards the complainant we opine that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
8. POINT Nos: 2 and 3: As the complainant did not prove on record that the LT line was laid after the construction of her house, where the Opposite Party No.1 had proved that LT line was laid there before 36 years, the complainant had herself constructed the house without permission under that LT line knowingly and wantedly, indirectly accepting that the risks are to be bared by her if there is any danger exists, we opine that the complainant is not entitled for the claims she made in her complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this Order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record RoomRegards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- 10-06-2010, 05:20 PM #3Unregistered Guest
Complaint about not installed new meter
PETITION FOR HARASSMENT FROM APCPDCL AUTHORITIES
To Whom Ever It May Concern
Sub: Wantedly Harassing Me a lot for giving complaint on Bribe.
I, K.HARI R/O LIG-276, BHEL, Ramachandra puram, I am writing this letter behalf of my Father Named K.BHASHAIAH, as I am an INDIAN donít have I right to complaint for BribeÖ? As I have already submitted you for taking bribe for installing the New Service Connection As we got a Provisional Assessment Order from Assistant divisional Engineer, Because of giving complaint on Bribe Matter and I am getting harassment from APCPDCL Authorities, because of only giving a complaint to CMD.
In this I am explaining you that from starting. I have applied for Additional Service Connection for a portion for my house on 05/07/2010 and my CN NO:63715955, before when I was applying my cousin also applied for New Service Connection when installing his meter the Line Man Demanded Bribe of 500 rupees, but finally he took 200 and went off, after i applied and I did not get in 20 days, I thought to complaint of my Meter Delay issue as well as Bribe matter also to authorities and finally I submitted my complaint in the APCPDCL website on 24/07/2010
After complaining the matter with in 2 days local authorities have came and enquire about the complaint and I have explained them the same matter of bribe and also about my new meter connection, they told me that they will not be issue me a new meter because of I have complained on the local authorities. They have clearly told that how ever it may be and what ever it may be they are not going to issue me the new meter finally I understood that they are not going to issue me a new meter because of complaint, and when local authorities came to my house for enquiry of my house completely searched for each and every switch board in the house the even they have checked all our 4 portions and already we have 2 meters for 2 portions and again I have applied for new meter for another 2 portions which are excluding from present meters.
Here is a twist I have complaint about bribe but the authorities forgot the actual matter of complaint even CGM and CMD also, and they are discussing about my New Meter connection. And even when I go to Customer Service Centre and asked for new meter application they simple told that the forms we donít have in the office you can get from Xerox centerís where ever they available, I go to 10 Xerox centers for the application finally I got in 10th XEROX centre even for a customer the authorities are not keeping application in the service center, then what service APCPDCL giving to the customer even when your customer service centre people are not having applications.
After Sending many complaints to CMD/ CGM they sent me a letter in the Letter which I observed that our Chief General Manager of APCPDCL understood that we have only 2 portions, because of the local authorities given report like that the truth is we have 4 portions in the 4 portions our local authorities are considering only 3 and they are ready to issue me a meter for this portion and the same matter Our Local Ramachandra puram AE has issued me a letter please read, attaching the letter copy for further information.
But here is a small problem with Our AE/ADE that they are not accepting our kitchen because it is a not established with a cement/stone platform because of the high expenses for establishing cement/stone platform we have purchased a table for using like kitchen platform and from past 5 years we are using the same table for cooking in the house but the Line man demands that if there is cement platform only they are going to install new meter otherwise not, I requested them about the same matter if I am having Table platform or cement platform for cooking what is the problem with this, even I can use bon fire at out side, finally Line Man called to AE on phone and given instructions to the Local Line Man to stop the installation of new meter and went off Local APCPDCL office, as per my budget I am maintaining a table platform for cooking is there any rule for platform of cement only, if so many people are having bon fires cooking in the villages and even in the city in some slum areas also so many people are having bon fires they donít have power connection tell meÖ.?
Previously we have given a portion with sub meter only in every month our power bill low previously but comparing to present tariff, and in every month we got the bill is only 200 to 250 but after giving them on rent in the june month we got the power bill 600 so we demanded them to pay 350 rupees but they refused for that reason we have told them to vacate immediately, when our renters are there with rent they have used the following 1.TV (daily 15Hours) 2.fan (20 hours) 3.mixie daily one time 4.water heater (daily 2times ), Iron box weekly thrice, and we got power bill so like that and for that reason only we have applied new Meter but Local authorities are wantedly misguiding to the State Authorities, if a State Chairman and Managing director and Chief General Manager not getting the proper information from the Local authorities then how these State authorities are maintain APCPDCL, I donít knowÖ?
And later on I have complaint with the above matter to CMD/CGM again but they have sent to Mr.Veerabhadra Rao DEE/MDK visited on 17/08/2010 at 17:00 hours, when he visited the DEE/MDK in our home there were total 30 petticoats are there only with 3 Colours they are orange, red and yellow, even a shop cannot run this 3 colours and But the DEE/MDK (VIGILENCE OFFICE) declared that our first room is Tailoring shop but already in the room from past 5 years it is a Kitchen in this year January we have it on rent but DEE declared that Tailoring shop is there in the Kitchen, and, This is Absolutely and Wantedly harassing me even the same kitchen photos and Videos I am submitting you, even how can we maintain a Tailoring shop in the Kitchen, here a government servant cheating to the public how we can we live in the society they are wantedly harassing me a lot, if you observe in the room there is a kitchen platform and sink is there for washing plates and everything but DEE Declare that it is a Tailoring shop, so here I am understanding that they are wantedly harassing me a lot.
In this case if you observed carefully we are stitching cloths that is correct we get cloths from some others and when Mr.Veerabhadra rao visited to our home there were 30 petticoats are there for stitching and he also counted with the same, after seeing the cloths, he misguided to my wife told that if she write a statement of we are selling these 30 Petticoats and stitching the same we will issue a new meter with in 2 days, as she believed his words (because I have been trying for meter from 2months) and as he dictated the words, she wrote the statement blindly and finally after 3 days we got the Assessment order from our ADE, PTC.
Sir, if they are harassing like this should I live or die..? Sir Please take necessary action those who are harassing me a lot, and please give Instructions to APCPDCL Authorities to cancel the Provision assessment order and issue me a New Meter. As soon As possible.
At The Final to follow Their Rules I have established Kitchen platform also in the last month and informed to APCPDCL Authorities but they are not giving me my new connection and already they have taken from me 1255/- Rupees for new connection but they are delaying my new connection too late here I demand my new connection immediately
By this Petition, I am expecting a positive Response from you.
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 11:04 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:50 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 02:07 PM