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 Room