The Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board

[Sidhant]

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA No.48/2009 against CC.No.387/2008 District Consumer Forum-III,Hyderabad.



Between:

Smt.Sharifunnisa,

W/o. Sri Mohd.Jaffar,

Aged about 37 years,

Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.2-2-647/230,

Central Excise Colony,

Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad – 500 013.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution

Corporation Limited,

rep. by its Managing Director,

Office at :Vidyuth Soudha,

Somajiguda, Hyderabad.



2.The Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board,

rep. by its Managing Director,

Khairatabad, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.



3.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Rep. bv its Chief Commissioner,

Office at: Tank Bund, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.



Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.Krishna Mashtan.

Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.stage.



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

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.



WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



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

*******



1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant,.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that she was running a STD Booth and Xerox machine having electricity connection from respondent No.1 for her livelihood. While so, on 05.07.2006 at about 12.30 there was a sudden fluctuation due to which the electrical equipment namely, call monitor, Xerox machine, table fan, monitor of local PCO, etc. were burnt. She sustained a loss of Rs.10,000/-. This fact was mentioned in the newspaper. It was due to deficiency in service by the Electricity Department. She got it repaired by spending an amount of Rs.63,640/-. There was loss of earnings of Rs.2,000/- per day from 06.07.2006 till 23.07.2006. She gave a legal notice for which there was no reply, and therefore, she sought Rs.63,640/- besides Rs.2,000/- per day from 06.07.2006 till 23.07.2006 amounting to Rs.36,000/- for 18 days, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

4. Respondent No.1 resisted the case. It alleged that the complainant already filed complaint, CD.No.74/2007 seeking the very same relief, which was dismissed by the District Forum on merits by order dt.30.04.2007, and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the principles of resjudicata. The voltage fluctuations were occurred due to cutting of tree branches by the MCH staff without informing them in order to enable them to take precautionary measures like switching off power supply to nearby lines, etc. There was no deficiency on their part. At any rate, they were not liable to pay any compensation and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5. Respondents 2 and 3 though engaged an advocate did not choose to file any counter.

6. The complainant in proof of her case filed her affidavit evidence besides Exs.A.1 to A.9.

7. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that she was not a consumer for she being a tenant of one Vijaddinnissa Begum in whose name the electricity connection stands. At any rate, she cannot claim the amount.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that due to the short circuit, the STD equipment was burnt, and therefore, the Electricity Board was liable to pay compensation.

9. The point for consideration is whether the order under appeal is liable to be set aside?

10. At the outset, we may state that the electricity connection stands in the name of one Vijaddinnissa Begum, evidenced under Ex.A.1. The complainant alleges that she was her tenant. No proof whatsoever was filed in order to establish that she was her tenant. It is not known why the complainant did not file affidavit of the owner of the premises, mentioning that she was the tenant drawing electrical energy for her telephonic appliances. What all she filed was Ex.A.2, the telephone bill standing in her name. It does not any way prove that she was a consumer of electrical energy.

11. The Electricity Board alleged that earlier the complainant had filed similar complaint, CD.No.74/2007 seeking the very same relief and the same was dismissed by the District Forum. The said fact was not controverted. It is not known as to the grounds under which the said complaint was dismissed. The complainant cannot go on filing complaint after complaint till it is allowed. She is estopped from filing complaint and undoubtedly principles of resjudicata could be invoked in cases of this nature. May be the principles of C.P.C or Evidence Act will not be applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but having counted dismissal order in the earlier C.D., she is estopped from agitating the very same claim. The complainant at any rate, could not establish that the material in the STD booth was burnt due to deficiency in service by the Electricity Department. No doubt the complainant is eking out her livelihood by running the STD booth. However, this could not be a ground for awarding compensation, unless she proves the facts beyond doubt that the parties against whom she filed complaint was liable to compensate for the loss sustained by her. The complainant in fact ought to have filed affidavits of persons with whom she got the equipment repaired and incurred expenditure. Without any evidence whatsoever, she will not be entitled to any order in her favour. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard by the District Forum.







12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.



PRESIDENT



LADY MEMBER

Dt:06.05.2009.

[j.shanmukharao@gmail.com]

Dear Sir,
Sub: MIG.II-820 KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72 - Can No.091508281 - Reconnection - Enhancement from 1/2" to 3/4" - Application No.571868 - Submitted on 04.05.2010 File No.2010-5-523 -KPHB Colony
Division 9 KPHB Colony - Reg.
***
Sorry and excuse me for approaching you in this regard. I have submitted application for reconnection of existing water connection, enhancing from 1/2" to 3/4" which was disconnected(1/2" connection) at the time of construction of my building, on 04.05.2010, to my house bearing No.MIG.II-820 KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 duly obtaining acknowledgement receipt No.362001 dt. 04.05.2010 (File No.2010-5-423) as the construction work is over.
I am facing very hardship in getting water and pucharsing water from Water works department now and then to meet the requirement.

I request you kindly to advise your officials to give reconnection by enhancing the existing connection from 1/2" to 3/4" at an early so as to mitigate the hardship in this regard for which act of kindness I shall be ever grateful t you sir.
Yours faithfully
Shanmukha Rao J
9347832585

[s.jhansi rani]

I, Smt. S. Jhansi Rani have taken Water Connection vide CAN No. 613668990 and paying regularly bills against my usage.

The water works department in the month of November'2011 have raised a bill for Rs.26192.58 as my usage charges. Though, I am regularly paying my bills, the current bill has been generated mentioning huge amount towards arrears besides abnormal water usage charges ignoring the fact that, i have been alloted domestic residential water connection.

My number of visits to local water works department office, Chintal have not given me any breath more so, the officials are making my fate miserable and are not giving any ear to rectify their error / no feel to advise me as to how their error can be rectified.

Under these circumstances, I am left with no option, except to seek your intervention to give suitable instructions to The DGM & The Manager of Water Works Department, Chintal area office, GHMC Kutubullapur for rectifying their records and to modify my usage bill immediately for act of kindness, i shall be grateful to you forever your Honor.

[Unregistered]

To,

The Hyderabad Metro Water Works and Sewerage Board,

rep. by its Managing Director,

Khairatabad, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.


Subject: Illegal Manjeera Water Connection.

Respecter Sir,

I am Sharath from Hema Durga Apts, Manjeera Road, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. With lot of problems we were able to gain the Manjeera water connection with less speed to our apartment.
In the mean time I understand the water quantity has decreased since Venkateshwara rao from V.R.Residency Independent houses which is besides our apartment has taken an illegal connection from the line which is coming to our apartment. We have personally requested the General Manager, Chandanagar division to disconnect that connection since it is an illegal connection. I personally think that people like Venkateshwar rao should be punished for these illegal acts severely. Kindly consider this as high priority and do needful.

Thank you,
Sharath.

[Unregistered]

Sir,

About 10 days back the contractor has dug new drainage pipe line in our street. The contractor had made 7 man holes in our street. Near fourth man hole they intentionally broken old line and the drainage water filled around the man hole. It is presumed that they want to cure without water the new line. I have noticed a water tank was kept on main road and they never pored water on the newly constructed man holes. The problem of curing/not curing the man holes lies with your supervisory staff. Our main problem is the stagnation drainage water at man hole no 4 which is giving bad smell and may result in serious health problems living around. The location is second street from high way towards right i.e Bharat Ratna defence colony adjacent to Rakshapuram. We have told to the working staff(may be contractors men but of no use. Kindly take necessary action immediately please.


Thanking you.

Owners of plot No 26&27