Appeal No. 19 of 2007

Between

Sri. T. Mahalakshmanudu

S/o. Bramahaiah, Pullalapadu,

Nallajerlamandalam, West Godavari – 534 112 … Appellant

And

1. Assistant Engineer/Operation/ Nallagerla/W.G.District

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation/Bhimadole/W.G.District

3. Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation/Eluru / W.G.District

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 03.12.2007 of the appellant has come up for settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 07.01.2008 in the presence of Appellant Sri. T. Mahalakshmanudu and his representative Sri. K. Prabakara Rao and the Respondent No.1 to and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

O R D E R

In the month of September 2006, the appellant herein filed a complaint before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., (for short the “Forum”) for redressal certain grievances relating to dispute in release of agriculture service. After conducting enquiry the Forum below passed an order on 10.01.2007 stating that

“The respondents shall conduct joint inspection as per sanctioned estimate with the consumer and satisfy him about erection of earth pipes, HG Fuse sets, and about fixation of bolts and nuts as required. Similarly the consumer may be clarified about the quantum of the length of service wire, that would be provided by the department as per General Terms and Conditions of supply of APEPDCL.

Regarding the claim for refund of development charges, the petitioner’s claim is allowed as per order No. S-347 / DD (CA) / 06-06 Dt. 28.10.2006 of Secretary, APERC communicated through Memo No. CGM / Comml / EPDCL / VSP / ADE / C /F.GC-58 / D.No.2123 / 06, dated 28.12.2006”.

2. Subsequently, by letter dated 19.05.2007 1^st respondent informed the appellant herein that in pursuance of the order of the Forum below an amount of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) was sanctioned. On 19.05.2007 itself, the appellant herein received the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- from 1^st respondent, subject however to right of appeal.

3. Further on 20.05.2007 joint inspection of S.C. No. 1420 was conducted as per the direction of the Forum below in the presence of appellant, 1^st respondent and Sri. K. Prabhakara Rao, a third party, during which required earth pipe as well as H.G. Fuse set were erected and bolts and nuts were also fixed to the satisfaction of the appellant herein.

4. However, inspite of clarifying the position with regard to service wire and the amount of development charges to be refunded, the appellant herein was not satisfied with the stand of 1^st respondent. On 20.05.2007 proceedings of joint inspection conducted were reduced into writing.

5. Aggrieved for not providing service wire as per Lr. No. CGM / CR & P / EPDCL / VSP / APE / FCC – 58 / D. No. 1440 / 06 dt. 29.08.2006 refunding only Rs. 15,000/- instead of Rs. 2,000/-, the appellant herein filed the present appeal dt.25.05.2007 (received on 29.05.2007) praying the Ombudsman to direct the respondents to refund cost of service wire and an amount of Rs. 5,000/- still due to be refunded to the appellant towards development charges.

6. On 07.01.2008 during the hearing into into the matter, the Ombudsman endeavored to promote settlement of mutual consent between the parties concerned as required under Clause 8 (1) (c) and Clause 11 of APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievance of Consumers) Regulation, 2004 (No. 1 of 2004). However, inspite of best efforts made by the Ombudsman, parties could not settle the matter in appeal by mutual consent. As there was no possibility to settle the matter by mutual consent between the parties as stated above, the Ombudsman proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

7. Heard Sri. K.Prabhakara Rao representative of the appellant and the respondents present.

8. The limited point that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of (a) cost of service connection and (b) Rs. 5,000/- towards development charges.

9. In this contest it is pertinent to note that with regard to service wire, the Forum below simply directed the respondents to clarify about the quantum of the length of service wire that would be provided by the department as per General Terms and Conditions of supply, but did not make any observation with regard to consequential relief to be granted to the appellant herein, if any, in pursuance of such clarification. Similarly with regard to refund of development charges, the Forum only ordered that the claim of the appellant for refund of development charges is allowed as per order No. S-347 / DD (CA) / 06-06 Dt. 28.10.2006 of Secretary, APERC communicated through Memo No. CGM / Comml / EPDCL / VSP / ADE / C / F.GC-58 / D.No. 2123 / 06, dated 28.12.2006, but did not quantify the amount to be refunded to the appellant.

10. In the working estimate sanction registered as DEWE (ELR) No. 688 / 05-06, the appellant is required to pay Rs. 500/- towards service connection charges which amount was paid by the appellant through a Demand Draft dated 20.06.2005 along with other amounts. But in the Memo dated 01.08.2005 regarding the drawal of materials, it is evident that LT AB cable was not drawn in respect of working estimates relating to four consumers including the appellant herein. Therefore, the respondents would not have collected Rs. 500/- towards service connection charges from the appellant herein.

11. Similarly, in the working estimate sanction registered as DEWE (ELR) No. 688 / 05-06, the appellant is required to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards development charges which amount was paid by the appellant through another Demand Draft also dated 20.06.2005. As mentioned above by letter dated 19.05.2007, 1^st respondent informed the appellant that an amount of Rs.15,000/- was sanctioned, which was refunded on the said date itself. But in the said letter it is not mentioned the details of amount towards which such amount was sanctioned. Whatever it may be, it is on record that the appellant received Rs. 15,000/- only under protest. 1^st respondent would have refunded Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, which was collected from him towards development charges.

12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the respondent(s) concerned to refund an amount of Rs.500/- towards cost of service connection charges and Rs.5,000/- towards balance of development charges deposited earlier by the appellant. The total amount of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five thousand five hundred only) shall be paid to appellant in cash within one month from the date of receipt of this order by the respondent(s), failing which the appellant is entitled for interest at 12% per annum on the said amount till the date of payment.

This order is corrected and signed on 22^nd day of January, 2008.