BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
Present
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Dated: 21-04-2008
Smt. E.Vanamala,
H.No. 3-3-203,
Enugulagadda,
Hanamkonda, Warangal
Dist. … Appellant
1. The
Assistant Divisional Engineer/Distribution/ Hanamkonda
2. The Assistant Engineer /
Distribution / Chowrasta, Hanamkonda
…
Respondents
The appeal / representation dated 04.06.2007 of the appellant has come up for final
hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 10.04.2008 in the presence of Sri. D.Hariprasad Yadav, Advocate on
behalf of the appellant and Sri R.Ramesh Khanna, Additional Engineer /
Distribution / Kazipet for the respondents and having stood over for
consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the
following:
Aggrieved by the order passed by
the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APNPDCL (for short the
“Forum”) in C.G. No. 142 / 2007 of
2. The case of the appellant is that ;
(a) She submitted application dt.04-01-2007 along with xerox copies of documents i.e., registered will deed dt. 02-07-2001 executed in her favour. The appellant never come across with respondent No. 1 and therefore the question of non production of documents to him does not arise. It is not within the knowledge of the appellant that the subscriber had furnished her documents to the respondent No.1 and no copies of alleged documents of alleged subscriber were furnished to the appellant.
(b) As mentioned at 2(ii) para of order that her representative attended on her behalf is correct, but it is utter falsehood to say that her representative informed that the grievance was solved. The further allegations that the Forum had insisted for a written statement and her representative stated that he will furnish the statement duly attested by the appellant and that the Forum addressed a letter dt. 24-04-2007 to the appellant vide Lr.No.CP/CGRF/NPDCL/C.G.No.142/07/dt.24-04-2007 are false and baseless. So far the appellant has not received any such letter from the Forum.
(c) The documents mentioned in the order furnished by the alleged subscriber, namely (i) Notarised sale deed, (ii) property tax receipt of Municipal corporation are not admissible documents in law to prove her title in respect of alleged property. Therefore the alleged subscriber has not valid and marketable title to establish that she is the absolute owner of the alleged property to which electricity connection was released. The respondents without verifying the documents of alleged subscriber with active collusion released connection on the same day of receipt of the documents i.e., 04-05-07 without furnishing to the appellant.
(d) The appellant humbly submit that she is the absolute owner and possessor of land in which the subscriber illegally raised temporary shed to legalise the same by illegal means. The appellant acquired the said property through a registered will deed dt.02-07-2001 vide document No. 21/2001 (copy enclosed) from Late Anumandla Rajaiah, R/o Waddepally who was the actual owner of the said land. The appellant submitted xerox copy of will deed for perusal of the Vidyut Ombudsman.
e) For the reasons stated above, the order dated 04.05.2007 under appeal is arbitrary and lacks appreciation of evidence on hand.
f) The Forum did not summon and enquire the person on whose name the alleged connection was released. In the absence of said person, the said order was passed and the same is against the principles of natural justice.
g) Hence, it is prayed to pass award in favour of the appellant directing the respondents to disconnect the connection to whom the same was released by the respondents and to set aside the order.
3. In terms of Clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 (1) of the APERC
Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of
Consumers Regulation, 2004 the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote
settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. In pursuance of the same, respondents were
intimated of the filing of the appeal / representation. Inspite of the best efforts made by the
Vidyut Ombudsman on 11.03.2008, there is no possibility of settlement between
the parties by mutual consent.
Therefore, the respondents were directed to file their submissions.
4. On 26.03.2008, Sri D.Hariprasad Yadav, Advocate filed
vakalat on behalf of the appellant. The
respondents 1 & 2 are present and respondent No. 1 filed counter. As the advocate appearing for appellant is
not having the copy of the counter filed by the respondent No.1, a copy of the
same was served on him on that day. The
Counsel appearing for appellant requested 15 days time to submit
arguments. Hence the appeal is posted
to 10.04.2008 for hearing.
5. In the counter, respondent No. 1 stated that :
(a) On 18-12-2006 Smt. Chityala Revathi, W/o. Hanumantha Rao has registered “A” Form in Consumer Service Centre, Hanamkonda seeking for single phase domestic connection duly producing (i) Notarising sale deed (ii) Property tax receipt of Municipality (iii) Voter card issued by Election Commission as poof of identity and duly obliging the other formalities as per the departmental rules.
(b) On 04-01-2007, Smt. E.Vanamala, H.No.3-3-203, Enugulugadda, Hanamkonda have a representation directly to the Chairperson, of the Forum stating that her father Sri. Anumandla Rajaiah had given 0.30 Guntas of land in Survey No. 631 and died.
(c) The Chairperson, of the Forum issued a notice to respondent No. 1 on 15.02.2007 to file written submission. The Forum forwarded photocopy of representationof Smt. E.Vanamala, Dt. 04.01.2007 with the notice. The appellant herein has not furnished any supporting documents defending her claim over the disputed 0.30 Guntas of land in Survey No. 631 which was referred to in her representation. As such the representation made by her has lost its essence and hence not maintainable. Thus, the appellant has no ‘Locus Standi’ to represent her grievance.
d) On 26.03.2007, respondent No. 1 replied to Chairperson, of the Forum about the release of supply and submitted that the representation of Smt. E.Vanamala could not be examined since the documents were not produced for verification which are essential for examine the case.
(e) On the other hand, the Forum collected the documents produced by the Chityala Revathi, W/o Hanumantha Rao which were submitted for release of power supply.
(f) The Forum ordered that the Statusquo shall be maintained in respect of service released for the present.
(g) Accordingly power supply is being continued.
(h) The appeal of Smt. E.Vanamala, R/o. Hanamkonda dt.04-06-2007 is not received by this office.
However upon obtaining photocopy of the above appeal from the office of Hon’ble Vidyut Ombudsman, this is to state further that:
the appellant never objected in any manner for release of supply to Smt. Chityala Revathi, W/o Hanumantha Rao, since she has no legitimate right or claim over the land. Instead, the appellant directly approached to the Forum after releasing of supply.
The supply was released to Smt. Chityala Revathi, W/o. Hanumantha Rao on registering of “A” Form at Consumer Service Centre, Hanamkonda after duly satisfied of the documents produced by her. Thus, it is clear that the contention of the appellant herein is not tenable. Moreover the Forum vide its Order dated 04-05-2007, directed that statusquo shall be maintained for the present in respect of the service released. Accordingly, the orders of the Forum are being followed scrupulously. Thus, the action taken by respondent No.1 is in order.
6. Heard both the parties on 10.04.2008.
7. The point
that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Forum below is correct
or not.
8. The case of the appellant / complainant is that Smt. Chityala Revathi W/o. Hanumantha Rao, Siddharthanagar, Kazipet has illegally constructed two rooms in her land and electricity supply was released to the illegal construction duly erecting one electricity pole. The appellant / complainant filed a complaint before the Forum for cancellation of electricity supply which was released in favour of Smt.Chityala Revathi. The Forum below after receiving the complaint from the appellant called for the report from the respondents. The respondent No. 1 gave a report. As per the said report, the service connection was released in favour of Smt. Chityala Revathi based on the documents furnished by her viz., Smt.Revathi. The order of the Forum would disclose that the appellant / complainant has not submitted any representation either to respondent No.1 or 2. After release of the service to Smt.Chityala Revathi, the appellant / complainant complained to the Forum. It is also the observation of the Forum below that it appears there is some dispute in respect of ownership of land. As per the order of the Forum below the supply was released as per departmental procedure in vogue.
“The complainant humbly submit that she is the absolute owner of and
possessor of land in which the subscriber illegally raised temporary shed to
legalise the same by illegal means. The
complainant acquired the said property through a registered will deed
dt.02-07-2001 vide document No. 21/2001 (copy enclosed) from the late Anumandla
Rajaiah, R/o Waddepally who was the actual owner of the said land. However I am herewith submitting xerox copy
of will deed for kind perusal of the authority.”..........(para 3 of page 2 of
the Appeal grounds).
Whether the subscriber raised the shed illegally or legally it is not the concern of the respondents. After being satisfied about the documents submitted by Smt.Revathi along with the “A” Form, the respondents released service connection in her favour. The documents produced by the respondents as directed by it, the Forum below also satisfied that the supply was released as per departmental procedures in vogue.