ORDER: 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming compensation for the death of his she buffaloes due to electrocution.

2. The averments in the complaint are as follows: The villagers of Rudra Samudram village used to take their cattle for grazing to the grazing land situated on the southern side of the village. Electric line was passing through the said grazing land. The said Electric lines which were passing through the grazing lands near Rudra Samudram village are in loose fitting condition and sparks are coming out from the electric wires and on seeing the same the president of the village and other villagers submitted a representation to 1st opposite party on 08.05.2008 and submitted copies of the representation to opposite parties 2 to 5. But, no action was taken by the opposite parties. On 13.05.2008 as usual the complainant and the other villagers were taking their she buffaloes for grazing. By the time the she buffaloes reached the spot one wire was detached from the line and fell and touched the she buffalos of the complainant and others and the she buffalos died on the spot due to electric shock. On seeing the electrical shock and death of the she buffalos, the villagers drove away the other she buffaloes from the spot and saved them. A report was given to the S.H.O. Donakonda Police Station about the occurrence on 13.05.2008 through V.R.O. of Rudra Samudram village and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.12/2008 of Donakonda Police Station. On the same day Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary dispensary, Donakonda conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the she buffaloes and opined that the cause of death of the she buffaloes was due to electric shock. He also furnished approximate value of the she buffaloes died in the accident. On 21.05.2008 the complainant and other villagers sent representation to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party promised to pay compensation after discussing with opposite parties 2 to 5. But, so far no compensation was paid to the complainant and others. It is the bounded duty of the opposite parties to check the electrical lines regularly and due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties electrical wire was detached from the line and the accident occurred. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

3. 1st opposite party filed his counter and opposite parties 2 to 5 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party. In their counter the opposite parties are contending as fallows: The allegation in the complaint that the electrical lines which were passing through the lands near Rudra Samudram are in loose fitting condition and sparks are coming out are all false. It is a story created by the complainant and other villagers. The president of the village or the complainant never brought to the notice of the opposite parties with regard to loose electrical wires. In fact the lines are in good condition. On 13.05.2008 on receiving information about the incident the supply was switched off. After the incident 1st opposite party went to the scene of offence and found that some she buffaloes rubbed to the electrical poles continuously and the swing of the conductor was cut down slowly and the entire conductor was cut down and fallen on the ground. There is no negligence on the pat of the opposite parties at any point of time. It is purely an accident. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has to file a Civil suit before the Civil Court for damages. The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- for each she buffalo and not more than that. For the foregoing reasons opposite parties prays to court to dismiss the complaint.

4. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. The Ex.A1 is the Representation given to the OP.1 dated 08.05.2008. Ex.A2 is the Receipt of complaint issued by Donakonda P.S in Complaint No.12/2008 dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A3 is the Certificate issued by Donakonda P.S. dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A4 is the List of she buffaloes and their nature dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A5 is the Post Mortem Certificates 3 in Nos. dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A6 is the Photos of the she buffaloes of the complainant dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A7 is the Occurrence published in Andhra Jyothi daily dated 14.05.2008. Ex.A8 is the A representation submitted to OP.1 and copies sent to Ops 2 to 5 dated 21.05.2008. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

5. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint.

6. It is not in dispute that the villagers of Rudra Samudram village used to take their she buffaloes for grazing to the grazing lands situated on the southern side of the village. Electric line was passing through the said grazing lands. The case of the complainant is that on 13.05.2008 when the she buffaloes belonged to the complainant and other villagers were being taken for grazing one of the electric wires cut from the pole and fell on the she buffaloes causing death of the she buffaloes belonging to the complainant and others due to electrocution.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that before the accident no one intimated to the department about the condition of the electrical wires and if there is any intimation and if the department fail to rectify the same then only the question of deficiency in service arise. He further argued that due to sudden flash wire was cut and fell down and for this the opposite parties cannot be blamed. He further argued that no representation is received in the office demanding compensation and the department is ready to pay compensation @ Rs.3,000/- for each animal died in the accident and not more than that as per the G.O passed by the Government.

8. The complainant says that on 08.05.2008 the villagers complained to the opposite parties about he loose electrical lines and had the opposite parties have taken care to rectify the electric line, the incident on 13.05.2008 should have been averted and due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not maintaining the electrical lines properly one of the electrical wires cut from the pole and fell on the ground causing electrocution to the she buffaloes.

9. I agree with the opposite parties that there is no proof to show that such a representation was given to the opposite parties on 08.05.2008.

10. It is an admitted fact that electric line was passing through the lands situated on the southern side of Rudra Samudram village. The plea taken by the opposite parties is that nobody complain to them about the condition of the electrical wires and had they received any information they would have certainly rectified the electrical wires and the incident would not have been occurred. It may be true that nobody complained to the opposite parties about the condition of the electrical wires. But nobody can deny that it is the duty of the opposite parties to check the electrical lines periodically and maintain the electrical wires in good condition. Had the electrical lines were maintained properly the unfortunate incident would not have happened.

11. Immediately, after the incident V.R.O. of Rudra Samudram village submitted written report to the S.H.O. Donakonda Police Station and the S.I of Police, Donakonda Police Station inspected the spot and filed his report. It is marked as Ex.A3. Ex.A3 Certificate reads that on the same day evening 1st opposite party inspected the spot and filed his report at 6.00 P.M. The same is not before the forum. The complainant says that on 21.05.2008 they gave a representation to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party promised the arrange compensation from the department. But, so far no compensation was paid to them. Ex.A8 is the representation. On the same day i.e., on 13.05.2008 veterinary assistant surgeon conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the she buffaloes and opined that the cause of death of the she buffalos is due to electric shock. The veterinary assistant surgeon also furnished approximate value of the she buffaloes died in the accident. According to the veterinary assistant surgeon the value of the 1st she buffalo is Rs.18,000/- and the 2nd she buffalo is Rs.16,000/- and the value of the 3rd buffalo is Rs.6,000/-. The value furnished by the veterinary surgeon appears to the reasonable and same can be awarded to the complainant.

12. Considering the documents produced by the complainant I am of the opinion that the accident took place due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not properly maintaining the electrical line and hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

13. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.40,000/- to the complainant being the value of the three she buffaloes of the complainant died due to electrical shock together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.

ORDER: 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming compensation for the death of his she buffaloes due to electrocution.

2. The averments in the complaint are as follows: The villagers of Rudra Samudram village used to take their cattle for grazing to the grazing land situated on the southern side of the village. Electric line was passing through the said grazing land. The said Electric lines which were passing through the grazing lands near Rudra Samudram village are in loose fitting condition and sparks are coming out from the electric wires and on seeing the same the president of the village and other villagers submitted a representation to 1st opposite party on 08.05.2008 and submitted copies of the representation to opposite parties 2 to 5. But, no action was taken by the opposite parties. On 13.05.2008 as usual the complainant and the other villagers were taking their she buffaloes for grazing. By the time the she buffaloes reached the spot one wire was detached from the line and fell and touched the she buffalos of the complainant and others and the she buffalos died on the spot due to electric shock. On seeing the electrical shock and death of the she buffalos, the villagers drove away the other she buffaloes from the spot and saved them. A report was given to the S.H.O. Donakonda Police Station about the occurrence on 13.05.2008 through V.R.O. of Rudra Samudram village and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.12/2008 of Donakonda Police Station. On the same day Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary dispensary, Donakonda conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the she buffaloes and opined that the cause of death of the she buffaloes was due to electric shock. He also furnished approximate value of the she buffaloes died in the accident. On 21.05.2008 the complainant and other villagers sent representation to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party promised to pay compensation after discussing with opposite parties 2 to 5. But, so far no compensation was paid to the complainant and others. It is the bounded duty of the opposite parties to check the electrical lines regularly and due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties electrical wire was detached from the line and the accident occurred. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

3. 1st opposite party filed his counter and opposite parties 2 to 5 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 1st opposite party. In their counter the opposite parties are contending as fallows: The allegation in the complaint that the electrical lines which were passing through the lands near Rudra Samudram are in loose fitting condition and sparks are coming out are all false. It is a story created by the complainant and other villagers. The president of the village or the complainant never brought to the notice of the opposite parties with regard to loose electrical wires. In fact the lines are in good condition. On 13.05.2008 on receiving information about the incident the supply was switched off. After the incident 1st opposite party went to the scene of offence and found that some she buffaloes rubbed to the electrical poles continuously and the swing of the conductor was cut down slowly and the entire conductor was cut down and fallen on the ground. There is no negligence on the pat of the opposite parties at any point of time. It is purely an accident. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has to file a Civil suit before the Civil Court for damages. The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.3,000/- for each she buffalo and not more than that. For the foregoing reasons opposite parties prays to court to dismiss the complaint.

4. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. The Ex.A1 is the Representation given to the OP.1 dated 08.05.2008. Ex.A2 is the Receipt of complaint issued by Donakonda P.S in Complaint No.12/2008 dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A3 is the Certificate issued by Donakonda P.S. dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A4 is the List of she buffaloes and their nature dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A5 is the Post Mortem Certificates 3 in Nos. dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A6 is the Photos of the she buffaloes of the complainant dated 13.05.2008. Ex.A7 is the Occurrence published in Andhra Jyothi daily dated 14.05.2008. Ex.A8 is the A representation submitted to OP.1 and copies sent to Ops 2 to 5 dated 21.05.2008. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

5. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint.

6. It is not in dispute that the villagers of Rudra Samudram village used to take their she buffaloes for grazing to the grazing lands situated on the southern side of the village. Electric line was passing through the said grazing lands. The case of the complainant is that on 13.05.2008 when the she buffaloes belonged to the complainant and other villagers were being taken for grazing one of the electric wires cut from the pole and fell on the she buffaloes causing death of the she buffaloes belonging to the complainant and others due to electrocution.

7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that before the accident no one intimated to the department about the condition of the electrical wires and if there is any intimation and if the department fail to rectify the same then only the question of deficiency in service arise. He further argued that due to sudden flash wire was cut and fell down and for this the opposite parties cannot be blamed. He further argued that no representation is received in the office demanding compensation and the department is ready to pay compensation @ Rs.3,000/- for each animal died in the accident and not more than that as per the G.O passed by the Government.

8. The complainant says that on 08.05.2008 the villagers complained to the opposite parties about he loose electrical lines and had the opposite parties have taken care to rectify the electric line, the incident on 13.05.2008 should have been averted and due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not maintaining the electrical lines properly one of the electrical wires cut from the pole and fell on the ground causing electrocution to the she buffaloes.

9. I agree with the opposite parties that there is no proof to show that such a representation was given to the opposite parties on 08.05.2008.

10. It is an admitted fact that electric line was passing through the lands situated on the southern side of Rudra Samudram village. The plea taken by the opposite parties is that nobody complain to them about the condition of the electrical wires and had they received any information they would have certainly rectified the electrical wires and the incident would not have been occurred. It may be true that nobody complained to the opposite parties about the condition of the electrical wires. But nobody can deny that it is the duty of the opposite parties to check the electrical lines periodically and maintain the electrical wires in good condition. Had the electrical lines were maintained properly the unfortunate incident would not have happened.

11. Immediately, after the incident V.R.O. of Rudra Samudram village submitted written report to the S.H.O. Donakonda Police Station and the S.I of Police, Donakonda Police Station inspected the spot and filed his report. It is marked as Ex.A3. Ex.A3 Certificate reads that on the same day evening 1st opposite party inspected the spot and filed his report at 6.00 P.M. The same is not before the forum. The complainant says that on 21.05.2008 they gave a representation to the 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party promised the arrange compensation from the department. But, so far no compensation was paid to them. Ex.A8 is the representation. On the same day i.e., on 13.05.2008 veterinary assistant surgeon conducted postmortem examination over the dead bodies of the she buffaloes and opined that the cause of death of the she buffalos is due to electric shock. The veterinary assistant surgeon also furnished approximate value of the two she buffaloes died in the accident. According to the veterinary assistant surgeon the value of the 1st she buffalo is Rs.20,000/- and the 2nd she buffalo is Rs.13,000/-. The value furnished by the veterinary surgeon appears to the reasonable and same can be awarded to the complainant.

12. Considering the documents produced by the complainant I am of the opinion that the accident took place due to the negligence of the opposite parties in not properly maintaining the electrical line and hence they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

13. In the result, petition is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.21,300/- to the complainant being the value of the two she buffaloes of the complainant died due to electrical shock together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant.

P. Nagi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 40 years,

Farmer, Krishna Nagar, T Sundupalli, Rayachoty. ….. Complainant.



Vs.



Divisional Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty. ….. Respondent.









O R D E R







1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased a house site in survey Nos. 2095/2 & 2097/2 in Sundupalli Kaspa. The electricity 33 K.V main line was passing through the house site. It was brought to the notice of Asst. Engineer by way of representation, who in turn informed to the Divisional Engineer. The Asst. Engineer prepared an estimate and submitted to the Divisional Engineer, who informed the complainant that the complainant would meet the expenses for shifting the line. The complainant gave one D.D. for Rs. 22,120/- vide D.D. No. 968569, dt. 20-12-2006 to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, who issued a receipt No. 006253 to the complainant. The Electrical Engineer took permission from the panchayat also. Inspite of repeated requests the Divisional Electrical Engineer did not take any action.


It was brought to the notice of Superintendent Engineer. Later a notice was issued through the advocate. Inspite of it a notice was sent by the electricity department to the complainant. In view of passing of 33 K.V main electricity line the complainant was unable to construct the house. Thus the complainant was filed to shift the electricity line passing through the house site of the complainant towards the road, otherwise an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- be paid as market rate of the property towards compensation and the amount deposited with interest may also be refunded.



3. The respondent filed a counter admitting the application submitted by the complainant for shifting of 33 K.V main line passing through the house site in survey No. 2095/2 and 2097/2 to the near by narrow road and for that purpose he paid Rs. 22,120/- by way of D.D on 20-12-2006 on the basis of estimate prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Electricity operation, T sundupalli on 11-11-2006. The respondent entrusted the work to the departmental contractor on 27-12-2006, who started the work. But the residents near by objected for shifting of the line which would pass through their houses in a narrow line and anticipated operation of danger and thus the departmental people failed to proceed with the work for shifting of the line.


The complainant had intention to sell the property with huge profits after rectification of the dispute in shifting the electrical line. The Asst. Engineer electricity operation, T Sundupalli made attempts on 17-1-2007, 3-3-2007 & 15-5-2007 for shifting the line but his efforts were not fruitful. The respondent had considered the interest of the general public and the interest of the complainant was only an individual interest. The respondent informed the complainant to take back the deposit amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant got issued a notice and the same was received and reply was sent. However, the complainant failed to take back the deposit amount.


The complainant sent a letter dt. 17-7-2008 requesting to shift one pole from west to east so that the problem would be rectified and to that effect he represented that he was ready to pay the necessary shifting charges. But the neighbors did not allow the respondent to shift the pole from west to east, because the electrical wires would pass over their sites. The respondent was ready to refund the deposit of amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant was not willing to take back the amount. The claim for damages of Rs. 8,80,000/- for not shifting the line was not maintainable because the respondent was ready to refund the deposit. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?



5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B5 were marked.



6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant filed a complaint as in person in Telugu. He purchased a house site in survey No. 2095/2 of 293.33 square yards of T Sundupalli Kaspa under Ex. A9 Xerox copy of registered settlement deed for Rs. 88,000/- from Polireddy Narasimha Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy. The executant under Ex. A9 was younger brother of the complainant. The complainant made a representation to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, operation APSPDCL, T Sundupalli to shift 33 K.V main line passing through the hosue site of the complainant and also agreed to pay the total expenditure under estimate for shifting of the line. The Xerox copy of the representation was Ex. A1. He filed a Xerox copy of application submitted to the village panchayat, Sundupalli to issue no objections certificate. The application was sent by one Sunkara Viswanatham. So Sunkara Viswanatham submitted the application to the panchayat to permit the department to shift the line without any objection. Later the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation prepared an estimate with a plan for new proposed line. The Xerox copy of the plan was Ex. A3 with estimated value for shifting of the line of Rs. 22,100/-.


The complainant obtained signatures of some villagers that they had no objection to shift the electric pole and erect in space left for passage and they had no objection to pass the line across the passage. The Xerox copy of representation of the villagers including the complainant was Ex. A4. The complainant paid Rs. 22,120/- and received a receipt from the electricity department on 20-12-2006 vide receipt No. 006253. The Xerox copy of the receipt was Ex. A5. Subsequently the respondent made efforts to shift the line. Some villagers objected because it would pass through their houses and would cause damage to their properties.


Therefore, the respondent wrote a reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant requesting its inability for execution of the shifting work and advised to take back, the amount deposited for shifting of the line. Ex. A6 was Xerox coy of reply notice from the respondent. The complainant wrote a letter to the Superintendent, A.P. TRANSCO on 30-1-2008 to shift line. The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex. A7. Ex. A8 was office copy of the letter dt. 16-5-2008 to the respondent.



7. The respondent filed Ex. B1 a representation of some residents of the area objecting the shifting of line as requested by the complainant, because it would cause much damge to their life and property and more over the complainant was a Real Estate business man purchased the site and had intention to sell it with huge profits after getting shifting of the line. Ex. B2 was letter from one K. Prema Chandra Reddy, Civil & Electrical Contractor to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation that the near by residents objected at the time of execution of the work.


Ex. B3 was Xerox copy of specification No. 42/06-07 of DE/O/Rayachoty regarding errection of 11 K.V/LT lines and additional DTRs in various distributions in Operation Section, T.Sundupalli together with description of the work and rates quoted by the contractor. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of letter dt. 12-1-2007 from the respondent to Sri K. Premachandra Reddy, the contractor. Ex. B4 was Xerox copy of letter addressed by the complainant on17-7-2008 to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation to shift one pole towards east from West and to that he would bear the expenses and ready to take back balance amount out of Rs. 22,120/- already deposited.


The complainant did not dispute the Ex. B4. In view of Ex. B4 he was not interested for shifting of the 33 K.V main line. But he had interest to shift one pole towards east from west and bear the expenses and requested the department to deduct the expenses for shifting of one pole out of the amount deposited of Rs. 22,120/-. But he filed the complaint to shift the entire line, otherwise to pay Rs. 8,80,000/- towards compensation. So the complaint was contrary to Ex. B4.



8. The complainant got the settlement deed from his own brother for house site under Ex. A9 Xerox copy. Before the complainant obtained Ex. A9 the 33 K.V main line was already passing through the site of his own brother, who did not raise any objection at any point of time. Knowing fully well that the 33 K.V. main line was passing through the site the complainant got the settlement deed. The main line was not a new one. It was an old line formed long back and the complainant was a resident of same village and had knowledge of the line since the beginning, but purposefully with malifide intention filed the complaint. The department or the Govt. had to look into the objection of the General Public instead of benefiting to one individual. In future some more people may request the department to shift the main line to some other place and were ready to deposit any amount proposed by the department without any end.


Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Because the respondent was even now ready to refund the deposit amount, but the complainant rejected it. In one way he applied for shifting of one pole and in another way he filed the complaint for shifting of the entire line and also claimed Rs. 8,80,000/- of the damages. The market value of the property under Ex. A9 as on 4-5-2009 was Rs. 88,000/-. Thus there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.



9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed, directing the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs of the respondent, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Gatta Suryanarayana Rao,

S/o. Kotaiah,

R/o. D.No.24-88,

Gandhipet, Chilakaluripet Town,

Guntur District. … Complainant



AND

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

Operation, APSPDCL,

Chilakaluripet,

Guntur District.

2. The Superintendent Engineer,

Operation, APSPDCL,

Guntur. … Opposite parties








O R D E R





This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant for refund of amount of Rs.16,847/- apart from damages of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and cost of litigation form the opposite parties.

The case of the complainant in brief is that:

That he is having electricity supply to his residential house vide SC No.5461 and he is regularly paying monthly consumption charges. While so, on 24-09-1996, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E.-I, Guntur booked pilferage of energy case against him. Later, the A.D.E., Guntur issued provisional assessment notice dt.24-09-1996 for an amount of Rs.16,420/-. The complainant has paid Rs.8,185/- vide B.C.R.C.No.4306 dt.09-10-1996 towards 50% initial assessment. Further, the D.E. Assessments, Vijayawada had finalized the case for an amount of Rs.16,847/-, dt.16-07-1998, then the complainant had paid balance 50% amount of Rs.8,611/- vide B.C.R.C.No.29137, dt.23-09-1998.

Subsequently, the complainant was acquitted by the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet in CC 309/01 by judgment dt.14-02-2003 in the criminal proceedings launched by opposite party.

Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for refund of amount of Rs.16,847/-. Despite of making repeated demands both personally and written representations, the opposite parties did not choose to refund the amount. Having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.12-01-2007 demanding the said amount. The 1st opposite party did not receive the notice, whereas the 2nd opposite party received the same and kept quite without giving any reply. As the complainant was acquitted in criminal case automatically he is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him. In this regard, the complainant has suffered a lot mentally on making representations. Therefore, he is entitled to claim damages of Rs.50,000/- apart from claiming amount of Rs.16,847/- and cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

The opposite parties have filed their version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is also alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the Special Tribunal (I Additional District Court, Guntur) was constituted under the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act 2000 and also the Electricity Act 2003 and the said Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to decide any disputes relating to Assessment etc. The amendments were brought into force from 31st July 2000 and 10-06-2003. As per the provisions of I.E. (A.P. Amendment) Act 2000 and as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any assessments made by the assessment officer.

It is submitted that the complainant was given SC No.5461 of Chilakaluripet. On 24-09-1996, meter was inspected and it was found that the complainant is utilizing supply by passing the meter and hence issued a provisional assessment notice dt.24-09-1996 for an amount of Rs.16,240/-. The complainant paid half of the assessment on 09-10-1996 and balance half of the amount on 23-09-1998. Simultaneously the inspector of Police, Vigilance, APSPDCL, Guntur has filed a charge sheet against the complainant. He was acquitted in CC 309/2001 as far as criminal liability is concerned.


It is also true that subsequently, the complainant made representations to the opposite parties for refund of the amount. He also made representation before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL, Tirupathi. On hearing both sides the Grievances Forum dismissed the case. The complainant also got issued legal notice dt.21-01-2007 and suitable reply dt.25-02-2007 was also issued. The provisions of APSEB revised terms and conditions of supply empowers the corporation to prosecute the offenders for theft of energy and also to determine the civil liability against a consumer in terms of money for theft of energy and both went parallel to each other.


Mere acquittal of the consumer from the criminal proceedings does not bar the proceedings to finalize the civil liability against a consumer in terms of money and collect the same. The complainant has no right to question the corporation to refund the amount already paid towards civil liability for theft of energy. Therefore, there is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite parties and on the other hand the complainant filed the complaint with unclean hands and misleading the Forum. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Both sides filed their affidavits in support of their claims. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked.

Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as alleged by the opposite parties?
2. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in not refunding the amount of Rs.16,847/-?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts as claimed?
4. To what relief?

POINT No.1

This issue pertains to the question about jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint. The opposite parties have alleged that in view of constitution of Special Tribunal i.e., I Additional District Court, Guntur as per the provisions of Amended Act and Electricity Act, 2003, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The learned counsel for complainant submits that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As noticed from the averments made in the version itself, a Special Tribunal is constituted to look into the disputes with regard to the assessment made by the concerned authority.


Admittedly, the dispute raised hereunder does not relate to the assessment order. Furthermore, the Forum is not a civil court which is barred from entertaining the suits or proceedings as per Section 145 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003. One way the opposite parties termed the complainant as a consumer (in their version) and on the other hand they contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction. In either case we observe that the dispute does not relate to the assessment order and the Forum is not a civil court. The despite relates to refund of amount paid by the complainant on the ground that he has been acquitted in a criminal case. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINTS 2 to 4

Now it is to be seen whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and negligence in not refunding the amount of Rs.16,847/-. There is no dispute about complainant having electricity supply under SC No.5461 to his residence at Chilakaluripet. There is also no dispute about inspection made by the concerned authorities on 24-09-1996 and provisional assessment made for pilferage of electricity supply. Equally there is no dispute about finalization of provisional order and the payment made by the complainant.


The Inspector of Police, Vigilance, APSPDCL, Guntur has launched criminal proceedings against the complainant for pilferage of energy under section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act. On due enquiry, the criminal court has acquitted the complainant for the said charges observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges. Now basing on the acquittal made by the criminal court, the complainant claims refund of the amount already paid by him. The defense put forth by the opposite parties is that the amounts were paid under civil liability as per the provisional assessment order and final assessment order. The acquittal of the complainant for charge of theft of electricity supply by a criminal court is nothing to do with the civil liability.


As such they rightly refused to refund the same. They also admit the written correspondence made in between them and issue of legal notice on behalf of complainant. In the reply notice vide Ex.B3 it is very much stated by the opposite parties that mere acquittal of the complainant from the criminal proceedings does not bar the proceedings to finalize the civil liability against a consumer. It is also brought to the notice of Forum that the complainant has approached the Forum for the Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL, Tirupathi for the same relief and the said Forum has dismissed the claim of the complainant.

Having observed the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions made by both sides we are of the view that mere acquittal in the criminal case of the charges under section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act, does not automatically entitle the complainant for claiming amount under assessment order. We have gone through the entire judgment of the criminal court in CC 309/01 on the file of Judl. I Class Magistrate, Chilakaluripet. In that case the prosecution has totally examined 5 witnesses, 2 of the witnesses became hostile. The other evidence on record was found insufficient to hold the complainant guilty of alleged charges. As per the evidence on record, the incoming and out going wires from the meter were not found in damaged condition. Therefore, the court held that there was no possibility of tampering of electricity by the complainant.


Accordingly, he was acquitted for the said charges. Whatever may be the cause or reason in arriving at the conclusion and giving acquittal to the accused which at most may amount to absolving the complainant from criminal liability. But it no way affects his civil liability. Therefore, this factor alone does not entitle the complainant to claim for the refund of amount already paid by him under assessment order. Thus, we are of the view that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service much less negligence in not refunding the amount. In the aforesaid circumstances, we hold that the complaint lacks merits. Accordingly, same is dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.

P. Nagi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 40 years,

Farmer, Krishna Nagar, T Sundupalli, Rayachoty. ….. Complainant.



Vs.



Divisional Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty. ….. Respondent.




O R D E R






1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased a house site in survey Nos. 2095/2 & 2097/2 in Sundupalli Kaspa. The electricity 33 K.V main line was passing through the house site. It was brought to the notice of Asst. Engineer by way of representation, who in turn informed to the Divisional Engineer. The Asst. Engineer prepared an estimate and submitted to the Divisional Engineer, who informed the complainant that the complainant would meet the expenses for shifting the line. The complainant gave one D.D. for Rs. 22,120/- vide D.D. No. 968569, dt. 20-12-2006 to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, who issued a receipt No. 006253 to the complainant.


The Electrical Engineer took permission from the panchayat also. Inspite of repeated requests the Divisional Electrical Engineer did not take any action. It was brought to the notice of Superintendent Engineer. Later a notice was issued through the advocate. Inspite of it a notice was sent by the electricity department to the complainant. In view of passing of 33 K.V main electricity line the complainant was unable to construct the house. Thus the complainant was filed to shift the electricity line passing through the house site of the complainant towards the road, otherwise an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- be paid as market rate of the property towards compensation and the amount deposited with interest may also be refunded.



3. The respondent filed a counter admitting the application submitted by the complainant for shifting of 33 K.V main line passing through the house site in survey No. 2095/2 and 2097/2 to the near by narrow road and for that purpose he paid Rs. 22,120/- by way of D.D on 20-12-2006 on the basis of estimate prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Electricity operation, T sundupalli on 11-11-2006. The respondent entrusted the work to the departmental contractor on 27-12-2006, who started the work. But the residents near by objected for shifting of the line which would pass through their houses in a narrow line and anticipated operation of danger and thus the departmental people failed to proceed with the work for shifting of the line.


The complainant had intention to sell the property with huge profits after rectification of the dispute in shifting the electrical line. The Asst. Engineer electricity operation, T Sundupalli made attempts on 17-1-2007, 3-3-2007 & 15-5-2007 for shifting the line but his efforts were not fruitful. The respondent had considered the interest of the general public and the interest of the complainant was only an individual interest. The respondent informed the complainant to take back the deposit amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant got issued a notice and the same was received and reply was sent. However, the complainant failed to take back the deposit amount.


The complainant sent a letter dt. 17-7-2008 requesting to shift one pole from west to east so that the problem would be rectified and to that effect he represented that he was ready to pay the necessary shifting charges. But the neighbors did not allow the respondent to shift the pole from west to east, because the electrical wires would pass over their sites. The respondent was ready to refund the deposit of amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant was not willing to take back the amount. The claim for damages of Rs. 8,80,000/- for not shifting the line was not maintainable because the respondent was ready to refund the deposit. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?



5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B5 were marked.



6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant filed a complaint as in person in Telugu. He purchased a house site in survey No. 2095/2 of 293.33 square yards of T Sundupalli Kaspa under Ex. A9 Xerox copy of registered settlement deed for Rs. 88,000/- from Polireddy Narasimha Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy. The executant under Ex. A9 was younger brother of the complainant. The complainant made a representation to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, operation APSPDCL, T Sundupalli to shift 33 K.V main line passing through the hosue site of the complainant and also agreed to pay the total expenditure under estimate for shifting of the line.


The Xerox copy of the representation was Ex. A1. He filed a Xerox copy of application submitted to the village panchayat, Sundupalli to issue no objections certificate. The application was sent by one Sunkara Viswanatham. So Sunkara Viswanatham submitted the application to the panchayat to permit the department to shift the line without any objection.


Later the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation prepared an estimate with a plan for new proposed line. The Xerox copy of the plan was Ex. A3 with estimated value for shifting of the line of Rs. 22,100/-. The complainant obtained signatures of some villagers that they had no objection to shift the electric pole and erect in space left for passage and they had no objection to pass the line across the passage. The Xerox copy of representation of the villagers including the complainant was Ex. A4. The complainant paid Rs. 22,120/- and received a receipt from the electricity department on 20-12-2006 vide receipt No. 006253. The Xerox copy of the receipt was Ex. A5. Subsequently the respondent made efforts to shift the line.


Some villagers objected because it would pass through their houses and would cause damage to their properties. Therefore, the respondent wrote a reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant requesting its inability for execution of the shifting work and advised to take back, the amount deposited for shifting of the line. Ex. A6 was Xerox coy of reply notice from the respondent. The complainant wrote a letter to the Superintendent, A.P. TRANSCO on 30-1-2008 to shift line. The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex. A7. Ex. A8 was office copy of the letter dt. 16-5-2008 to the respondent.



7. The respondent filed Ex. B1 a representation of some residents of the area objecting the shifting of line as requested by the complainant, because it would cause much damge to their life and property and more over the complainant was a Real Estate business man purchased the site and had intention to sell it with huge profits after getting shifting of the line. Ex. B2 was letter from one K. Prema Chandra Reddy, Civil & Electrical Contractor to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation that the near by residents objected at the time of execution of the work. Ex. B3 was Xerox copy of specification No. 42/06-07 of DE/O/Rayachoty regarding errection of 11 K.V/LT lines and additional DTRs in various distributions in Operation Section, T.Sundupalli together with description of the work and rates quoted by the contractor. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of letter dt. 12-1-2007 from the respondent to Sri K. Premachandra Reddy, the contractor.


Ex. B4 was Xerox copy of letter addressed by the complainant on17-7-2008 to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation to shift one pole towards east from West and to that he would bear the expenses and ready to take back balance amount out of Rs. 22,120/- already deposited. The complainant did not dispute the Ex. B4. In view of Ex. B4 he was not interested for shifting of the 33 K.V main line. But he had interest to shift one pole towards east from west and bear the expenses and requested the department to deduct the expenses for shifting of one pole out of the amount deposited of Rs. 22,120/-. But he filed the complaint to shift the entire line, otherwise to pay Rs. 8,80,000/- towards compensation. So the complaint was contrary to Ex. B4.



8. The complainant got the settlement deed from his own brother for house site under Ex. A9 Xerox copy. Before the complainant obtained Ex. A9 the 33 K.V main line was already passing through the site of his own brother, who did not raise any objection at any point of time. Knowing fully well that the 33 K.V. main line was passing through the site the complainant got the settlement deed. The main line was not a new one. It was an old line formed long back and the complainant was a resident of same village and had knowledge of the line since the beginning, but purposefully with malifide intention filed the complaint. The department or the Govt. had to look into the objection of the General Public instead of benefiting to one individual. In future some more people may request the department to shift the main line to some other place and were ready to deposit any amount proposed by the department without any end.


Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Because the respondent was even now ready to refund the deposit amount, but the complainant rejected it. In one way he applied for shifting of one pole and in another way he filed the complaint for shifting of the entire line and also claimed Rs. 8,80,000/- of the damages. The market value of the property under Ex. A9 as on 4-5-2009 was Rs. 88,000/-. Thus there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.



9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed, directing the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards costs of the respondent, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

P. Nagi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 40 years,

Farmer, Krishna Nagar, T Sundupalli, Rayachoty. ….. Complainant.



Vs.



Divisional Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty. ….. Respondent.









O R D E R






1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased a house site in survey Nos. 2095/2 & 2097/2 in Sundupalli Kaspa. The electricity 33 K.V main line was passing through the house site. It was brought to the notice of Asst. Engineer by way of representation, who in turn informed to the Divisional Engineer. The Asst. Engineer prepared an estimate and submitted to the Divisional Engineer, who informed the complainant that the complainant would meet the expenses for shifting the line. The complainant gave one D.D. for Rs. 22,120/- vide D.D. No. 968569, dt. 20-12-2006 to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, who issued a receipt No. 006253 to the complainant. The Electrical Engineer took permission from the panchayat also. Inspite of repeated requests the Divisional Electrical Engineer did not take any action.


It was brought to the notice of Superintendent Engineer. Later a notice was issued through the advocate. Inspite of it a notice was sent by the electricity department to the complainant. In view of passing of 33 K.V main electricity line the complainant was unable to construct the house. Thus the complainant was filed to shift the electricity line passing through the house site of the complainant towards the road, otherwise an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- be paid as market rate of the property towards compensation and the amount deposited with interest may also be refunded.



3. The respondent filed a counter admitting the application submitted by the complainant for shifting of 33 K.V main line passing through the house site in survey No. 2095/2 and 2097/2 to the near by narrow road and for that purpose he paid Rs. 22,120/- by way of D.D on 20-12-2006 on the basis of estimate prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Electricity operation, T sundupalli on 11-11-2006. The respondent entrusted the work to the departmental contractor on 27-12-2006, who started the work.


But the residents near by objected for shifting of the line which would pass through their houses in a narrow line and anticipated operation of danger and thus the departmental people failed to proceed with the work for shifting of the line. The complainant had intention to sell the property with huge profits after rectification of the dispute in shifting the electrical line.


The Asst. Engineer electricity operation, T Sundupalli made attempts on 17-1-2007, 3-3-2007 & 15-5-2007 for shifting the line but his efforts were not fruitful. The respondent had considered the interest of the general public and the interest of the complainant was only an individual interest. The respondent informed the complainant to take back the deposit amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant got issued a notice and the same was received and reply was sent. However, the complainant failed to take back the deposit amount.


The complainant sent a letter dt. 17-7-2008 requesting to shift one pole from west to east so that the problem would be rectified and to that effect he represented that he was ready to pay the necessary shifting charges. But the neighbors did not allow the respondent to shift the pole from west to east, because the electrical wires would pass over their sites. The respondent was ready to refund the deposit of amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant was not willing to take back the amount. The claim for damages of Rs. 8,80,000/- for not shifting the line was not maintainable because the respondent was ready to refund the deposit. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?



5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B5 were marked.



6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant filed a complaint as in person in Telugu. He purchased a house site in survey No. 2095/2 of 293.33 square yards of T Sundupalli Kaspa under Ex. A9 Xerox copy of registered settlement deed for Rs. 88,000/- from Polireddy Narasimha Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy. The executant under Ex. A9 was younger brother of the complainant. The complainant made a representation to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, operation APSPDCL, T Sundupalli to shift 33 K.V main line passing through the hosue site of the complainant and also agreed to pay the total expenditure under estimate for shifting of the line.


The Xerox copy of the representation was Ex. A1. He filed a Xerox copy of application submitted to the village panchayat, Sundupalli to issue no objections certificate. The application was sent by one Sunkara Viswanatham. So Sunkara Viswanatham submitted the application to the panchayat to permit the department to shift the line without any objection. Later the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation prepared an estimate with a plan for new proposed line. The Xerox copy of the plan was Ex. A3 with estimated value for shifting of the line of Rs. 22,100/-.


The complainant obtained signatures of some villagers that they had no objection to shift the electric pole and erect in space left for passage and they had no objection to pass the line across the passage. The Xerox copy of representation of the villagers including the complainant was Ex. A4. The complainant paid Rs. 22,120/- and received a receipt from the electricity department on 20-12-2006 vide receipt No. 006253. The Xerox copy of the receipt was Ex. A5. Subsequently the respondent made efforts to shift the line. Some villagers objected because it would pass through their houses and would cause damage to their properties.


Therefore, the respondent wrote a reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant requesting its inability for execution of the shifting work and advised to take back, the amount deposited for shifting of the line. Ex. A6 was Xerox coy of reply notice from the respondent. The complainant wrote a letter to the Superintendent, A.P. TRANSCO on 30-1-2008 to shift line. The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex. A7. Ex. A8 was office copy of the letter dt. 16-5-2008 to the respondent.



7. The respondent filed Ex. B1 a representation of some residents of the area objecting the shifting of line as requested by the complainant, because it would cause much damge to their life and property and more over the complainant was a Real Estate business man purchased the site and had intention to sell it with huge profits after getting shifting of the line. Ex. B2 was letter from one K. Prema Chandra Reddy, Civil & Electrical Contractor to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation that the near by residents objected at the time of execution of the work.


Ex. B3 was Xerox copy of specification No. 42/06-07 of DE/O/Rayachoty regarding errection of 11 K.V/LT lines and additional DTRs in various distributions in Operation Section, T.Sundupalli together with description of the work and rates quoted by the contractor. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of letter dt. 12-1-2007 from the respondent to Sri K. Premachandra Reddy, the contractor. Ex. B4 was Xerox copy of letter addressed by the complainant on17-7-2008 to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation to shift one pole towards east from West and to that he would bear the expenses and ready to take back balance amount out of Rs. 22,120/- already deposited.


The complainant did not dispute the Ex. B4. In view of Ex. B4 he was not interested for shifting of the 33 K.V main line. But he had interest to shift one pole towards east from west and bear the expenses and requested the department to deduct the expenses for shifting of one pole out of the amount deposited of Rs. 22,120/-. But he filed the complaint to shift the entire line, otherwise to pay Rs. 8,80,000/- towards compensation. So the complaint was contrary to Ex. B4.



8. The complainant got the settlement deed from his own brother for house site under Ex. A9 Xerox copy. Before the complainant obtained Ex. A9 the 33 K.V main line was already passing through the site of his own brother, who did not raise any objection at any point of time. Knowing fully well that the 33 K.V. main line was passing through the site the complainant got the settlement deed.


The main line was not a new one. It was an old line formed long back and the complainant was a resident of same village and had knowledge of the line since the beginning, but purposefully with malifide intention filed the complaint. The department or the Govt. had to look into the objection of the General Public instead of benefiting to one individual. In future some more people may request the department to shift the main line to some other place and were ready to deposit any amount proposed by the department without any end.


Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Because the respondent was even now ready to refund the deposit amount, but the complainant rejected it. In one way he applied for shifting of one pole and in another way he filed the complaint for shifting of the entire line and also claimed Rs. 8,80,000/- of the damages. The market value of the property under Ex. A9 as on 4-5-2009 was Rs. 88,000/-. Thus there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.

Gatta Suryanarayana Rao,

S/o. Kotaiah,

R/o. D.No.24-88,

Gandhipet, Chilakaluripet Town,

Guntur District. … Complainant



AND

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

Operation, APSPDCL,

Chilakaluripet,

Guntur District.

2. The Superintendent Engineer,

Operation, APSPDCL,

Guntur. … Opposite parties










O R D E R





This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant for refund of amount of Rs.16,847/- apart from damages of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and cost of litigation form the opposite parties.

The case of the complainant in brief is that:

That he is having electricity supply to his residential house vide SC No.5461 and he is regularly paying monthly consumption charges. While so, on 24-09-1996, the Assistant Divisional Engineer, D.P.E.-I, Guntur booked pilferage of energy case against him. Later, the A.D.E., Guntur issued provisional assessment notice dt.24-09-1996 for an amount of Rs.16,420/-. The complainant has paid Rs.8,185/- vide B.C.R.C.No.4306 dt.09-10-1996 towards 50% initial assessment. Further, the D.E. Assessments, Vijayawada had finalized the case for an amount of Rs.16,847/-, dt.16-07-1998, then the complainant had paid balance 50% amount of Rs.8,611/- vide B.C.R.C.No.29137, dt.23-09-1998.

Subsequently, the complainant was acquitted by the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Chilakaluripet in CC 309/01 by judgment dt.14-02-2003 in the criminal proceedings launched by opposite party.

Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties for refund of amount of Rs.16,847/-. Despite of making repeated demands both personally and written representations, the opposite parties did not choose to refund the amount. Having vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.12-01-2007 demanding the said amount.


The 1st opposite party did not receive the notice, whereas the 2nd opposite party received the same and kept quite without giving any reply. As the complainant was acquitted in criminal case automatically he is entitled for refund of the amount paid by him. In this regard, the complainant has suffered a lot mentally on making representations. Therefore, he is entitled to claim damages of Rs.50,000/- apart from claiming amount of Rs.16,847/- and cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

The opposite parties have filed their version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is also alleged that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the Special Tribunal (I Additional District Court, Guntur) was constituted under the Indian Electricity (A.P. Amendment) Act 2000 and also the Electricity Act 2003 and the said Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to decide any disputes relating to Assessment etc.


The amendments were brought into force from 31st July 2000 and 10-06-2003. As per the provisions of I.E. (A.P. Amendment) Act 2000 and as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any assessments made by the assessment officer.

It is submitted that the complainant was given SC No.5461 of Chilakaluripet. On 24-09-1996, meter was inspected and it was found that the complainant is utilizing supply by passing the meter and hence issued a provisional assessment notice dt.24-09-1996 for an amount of Rs.16,240/-. The complainant paid half of the assessment on 09-10-1996 and balance half of the amount on 23-09-1998. Simultaneously the inspector of Police, Vigilance, APSPDCL, Guntur has filed a charge sheet against the complainant. He was acquitted in CC 309/2001 as far as criminal liability is concerned.


It is also true that subsequently, the complainant made representations to the opposite parties for refund of the amount. He also made representation before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL, Tirupathi. On hearing both sides the Grievances Forum dismissed the case. The complainant also got issued legal notice dt.21-01-2007 and suitable reply dt.25-02-2007 was also issued. The provisions of APSEB revised terms and conditions of supply empowers the corporation to prosecute the offenders for theft of energy and also to determine the civil liability against a consumer in terms of money for theft of energy and both went parallel to each other.


Mere acquittal of the consumer from the criminal proceedings does not bar the proceedings to finalize the civil liability against a consumer in terms of money and collect the same. The complainant has no right to question the corporation to refund the amount already paid towards civil liability for theft of energy. Therefore, there is neither deficiency of service nor negligence on the part of opposite parties and on the other hand the complainant filed the complaint with unclean hands and misleading the Forum. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Both sides filed their affidavits in support of their claims. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked. On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B1 to B3 are marked.

Now the points for determination are that

1. Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as alleged by the opposite parties?
2. Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service in not refunding the amount of Rs.16,847/-?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts as claimed?
4. To what relief?

POINT No.1

This issue pertains to the question about jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present complaint. The opposite parties have alleged that in view of constitution of Special Tribunal i.e., I Additional District Court, Guntur as per the provisions of Amended Act and Electricity Act, 2003, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.


The learned counsel for complainant submits that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. As noticed from the averments made in the version itself, a Special Tribunal is constituted to look into the disputes with regard to the assessment made by the concerned authority. Admittedly, the dispute raised hereunder does not relate to the assessment order. Furthermore, the Forum is not a civil court which is barred from entertaining the suits or proceedings as per Section 145 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003.


One way the opposite parties termed the complainant as a consumer (in their version) and on the other hand they contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction. In either case we observe that the dispute does not relate to the assessment order and the Forum is not a civil court. The despite relates to refund of amount paid by the complainant on the ground that he has been acquitted in a criminal case. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the point is answered.

POINTS 2 to 4

Now it is to be seen whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service and negligence in not refunding the amount of Rs.16,847/-. There is no dispute about complainant having electricity supply under SC No.5461 to his residence at Chilakaluripet. There is also no dispute about inspection made by the concerned authorities on 24-09-1996 and provisional assessment made for pilferage of electricity supply. Equally there is no dispute about finalization of provisional order and the payment made by the complainant. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance, APSPDCL, Guntur has launched criminal proceedings against the complainant for pilferage of energy under section 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act.


On due enquiry, the criminal court has acquitted the complainant for the said charges observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charges. Now basing on the acquittal made by the criminal court, the complainant claims refund of the amount already paid by him. The defense put forth by the opposite parties is that the amounts were paid under civil liability as per the provisional assessment order and final assessment order. The acquittal of the complainant for charge of theft of electricity supply by a criminal court is nothing to do with the civil liability.


As such they rightly refused to refund the same. They also admit the written correspondence made in between them and issue of legal notice on behalf of complainant. In the reply notice vide Ex.B3 it is very much stated by the opposite parties that mere acquittal of the complainant from the criminal proceedings does not bar the proceedings to finalize the civil liability against a consumer. It is also brought to the notice of Forum that the complainant has approached the Forum for the Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL, Tirupathi for the same relief and the said Forum has dismissed the claim of the complainant.

P. Nagi Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 40 years,

Farmer, Krishna Nagar, T Sundupalli, Rayachoty. ….. Complainant.



Vs.



Divisional Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL, Rayachoty. ….. Respondent.









O R D E R







2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased a house site in survey Nos. 2095/2 & 2097/2 in Sundupalli Kaspa. The electricity 33 K.V main line was passing through the house site. It was brought to the notice of Asst. Engineer by way of representation, who in turn informed to the Divisional Engineer.


The Asst. Engineer prepared an estimate and submitted to the Divisional Engineer, who informed the complainant that the complainant would meet the expenses for shifting the line. The complainant gave one D.D. for Rs. 22,120/- vide D.D. No. 968569, dt. 20-12-2006 to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, who issued a receipt No. 006253 to the complainant. The Electrical Engineer took permission from the panchayat also. Inspite of repeated requests the Divisional Electrical Engineer did not take any action.


It was brought to the notice of Superintendent Engineer. Later a notice was issued through the advocate. Inspite of it a notice was sent by the electricity department to the complainant. In view of passing of 33 K.V main electricity line the complainant was unable to construct the house. Thus the complainant was filed to shift the electricity line passing through the house site of the complainant towards the road, otherwise an amount of Rs. 8,80,000/- be paid as market rate of the property towards compensation and the amount deposited with interest may also be refunded.



3. The respondent filed a counter admitting the application submitted by the complainant for shifting of 33 K.V main line passing through the house site in survey No. 2095/2 and 2097/2 to the near by narrow road and for that purpose he paid Rs. 22,120/- by way of D.D on 20-12-2006 on the basis of estimate prepared by the Asst. Engineer, Electricity operation, T sundupalli on 11-11-2006. The respondent entrusted the work to the departmental contractor on 27-12-2006, who started the work.



But the residents near by objected for shifting of the line which would pass through their houses in a narrow line and anticipated operation of danger and thus the departmental people failed to proceed with the work for shifting of the line. The complainant had intention to sell the property with huge profits after rectification of the dispute in shifting the electrical line. The Asst. Engineer electricity operation, T Sundupalli made attempts on 17-1-2007, 3-3-2007 & 15-5-2007 for shifting the line but his efforts were not fruitful. The respondent had considered the interest of the general public and the interest of the complainant was only an individual interest.


The respondent informed the complainant to take back the deposit amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant got issued a notice and the same was received and reply was sent. However, the complainant failed to take back the deposit amount. The complainant sent a letter dt. 17-7-2008 requesting to shift one pole from west to east so that the problem would be rectified and to that effect he represented that he was ready to pay the necessary shifting charges.


But the neighbors did not allow the respondent to shift the pole from west to east, because the electrical wires would pass over their sites. The respondent was ready to refund the deposit of amount of Rs. 22,120/-. The complainant was not willing to take back the amount. The claim for damages of Rs. 8,80,000/- for not shifting the line was not maintainable because the respondent was ready to refund the deposit. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondent?

ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

iii. To what relief?



5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 to B5 were marked.



6. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant filed a complaint as in person in Telugu. He purchased a house site in survey No. 2095/2 of 293.33 square yards of T Sundupalli Kaspa under Ex. A9 Xerox copy of registered settlement deed for Rs. 88,000/- from Polireddy Narasimha Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy. The executant under Ex. A9 was younger brother of the complainant. The complainant made a representation to the Asst. Electrical Engineer, operation APSPDCL, T Sundupalli to shift 33 K.V main line passing through the hosue site of the complainant and also agreed to pay the total expenditure under estimate for shifting of the line.


The Xerox copy of the representation was Ex. A1. He filed a Xerox copy of application submitted to the village panchayat, Sundupalli to issue no objections certificate. The application was sent by one Sunkara Viswanatham. So Sunkara Viswanatham submitted the application to the panchayat to permit the department to shift the line without any objection. Later the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation prepared an estimate with a plan for new proposed line. The Xerox copy of the plan was Ex. A3 with estimated value for shifting of the line of Rs. 22,100/-.


The complainant obtained signatures of some villagers that they had no objection to shift the electric pole and erect in space left for passage and they had no objection to pass the line across the passage. The Xerox copy of representation of the villagers including the complainant was Ex. A4. The complainant paid Rs. 22,120/- and received a receipt from the electricity department on 20-12-2006 vide receipt No. 006253. The Xerox copy of the receipt was Ex. A5. Subsequently the respondent made efforts to shift the line. Some villagers objected because it would pass through their houses and would cause damage to their properties.


Therefore, the respondent wrote a reply notice to the notice issued by the complainant requesting its inability for execution of the shifting work and advised to take back, the amount deposited for shifting of the line. Ex. A6 was Xerox coy of reply notice from the respondent. The complainant wrote a letter to the Superintendent, A.P. TRANSCO on 30-1-2008 to shift line. The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex. A7. Ex. A8 was office copy of the letter dt. 16-5-2008 to the respondent.



7. The respondent filed Ex. B1 a representation of some residents of the area objecting the shifting of line as requested by the complainant, because it would cause much damge to their life and property and more over the complainant was a Real Estate business man purchased the site and had intention to sell it with huge profits after getting shifting of the line. Ex. B2 was letter from one K. Prema Chandra Reddy, Civil & Electrical Contractor to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation that the near by residents objected at the time of execution of the work.


Ex. B3 was Xerox copy of specification No. 42/06-07 of DE/O/Rayachoty regarding errection of 11 K.V/LT lines and additional DTRs in various distributions in Operation Section, T.Sundupalli together with description of the work and rates quoted by the contractor. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of letter dt. 12-1-2007 from the respondent to Sri K. Premachandra Reddy, the contractor. Ex. B4 was Xerox copy of letter addressed by the complainant on17-7-2008 to the Asst. Engineer, Electricity Operation to shift one pole towards east from West and to that he would bear the expenses and ready to take back balance amount out of Rs. 22,120/- already deposited.


The complainant did not dispute the Ex. B4. In view of Ex. B4 he was not interested for shifting of the 33 K.V main line. But he had interest to shift one pole towards east from west and bear the expenses and requested the department to deduct the expenses for shifting of one pole out of the amount deposited of Rs. 22,120/-. But he filed the complaint to shift the entire line, otherwise to pay Rs. 8,80,000/- towards compensation. So the complaint was contrary to Ex. B4.



8. The complainant got the settlement deed from his own brother for house site under Ex. A9 Xerox copy. Before the complainant obtained Ex. A9 the 33 K.V main line was already passing through the site of his own brother, who did not raise any objection at any point of time. Knowing fully well that the 33 K.V. main line was passing through the site the complainant got the settlement deed. The main line was not a new one.


It was an old line formed long back and the complainant was a resident of same village and had knowledge of the line since the beginning, but purposefully with malifide intention filed the complaint. The department or the Govt. had to look into the objection of the General Public instead of benefiting to one individual. In future some more people may request the department to shift the main line to some other place and were ready to deposit any amount proposed by the department without any end.


Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. Because the respondent was even now ready to refund the deposit amount, but the complainant rejected it. In one way he applied for shifting of one pole and in another way he filed the complaint for shifting of the entire line and also claimed Rs. 8,80,000/- of the damages. The market value of the property under Ex. A9 as on 4-5-2009 was Rs. 88,000/-. Thus there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed.