Appeal No. 37 of 2007

Between

P.Sarala, W/o P.Sahadeva Reddy,

H.No. 16-2-754 / A / 29, A.P.A.U Colony,

Asmanghad, Hyderabad. ... Appellant

and

1) Superintending Engineer/Operation/APCPDCL/Hyd (S) Circle /Hyd

2) Senior Accounts Officer/Operation /APCPDCL/Hyd (S) Circle /Hyd

3) Divisional Engineer/Operation /APCPDCL/Asmangadh/Hyderabad

4) Asst. Divisional Engineer/Operation/APCPDCL/Asmangadh/Hyd

5) Asst. Accounts Officer/ERO/Chenchalguda/ APCPDCL/Hyd

6) The General Manager/ Customer Services/APCPDCL,

Corporate Office, Hyderabad … Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 16.10.2007 of the appellant has come up for settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 05.01.2008 in the presence of Sri.K.Narayan Rao, Advocate for appellant and 4^th respondent and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

O R D E R

This appeal arises against the order passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’) in C.G.No: 78/2006-07/ Hyderabad(South) Circle dated 20.02.2007.

2. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed under Clause 9 (1) of APERC (Establishment of Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for redressal of grievances of the consumers) Regulation of 2004 by the appellant herein, it is urged that:

(a) the order passed by the Forum is erroneous, contrary and against the principles of natural justice.

(b) the Forum failed to observe that the category was changed from residential to commercial from December, 2003 to June, 2006 without any intimation or knowledge to the appellant.

(c ) the Forum failed to observe that the appellant has taken the connection No. V8-014534 with Category-1 (Domestic) and the service was provided to her and only during the period from December, 2003 to June, 2006 converted to commercial category by the respondents.

(d) construction of the house was completed in the year 2003. However, the appellant paid electricity bill upto the month of June, 2006 under protest. The appellant complained to the respondents, including to the 4^th respondent in the month of August 2006, to change category, but to no avail. As the appellant was not well since 2003 and was taking medical treatment, she did not observe change of category from I to II and therefore, could not complain to the respondents till the year 2006.

3. In terms of clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004, reconciliation meeting was held between the parties on 05.01.2008 at Hyderabad to promote a settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. The appellant, her counsel and 4^th respondent were present. However, inspite of best efforts made by the Ombudsman, the appeal filed by the appellant could not be settled by mutual agreement between the parties.

4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and 4^th respondent on 05.01.2008.

5. On perusal of the record it is noticed that the complaint filed by the complainant (appellant herein) came up for hearing before the Forum on 02.02.2007, on which day the complainant did not attend the hearing. As seen from the order dated 20.02.2007, the Forum below jumped to the conclusion that the absence of the appellant on 02.02.2007 proved that she is not having fool proof evidence that usage of energy was for domestic purpose only, but not for construction purpose during the period from December, 2003 to May, 2006. Simply because the complainant failed to attend before the Forum on 02.02.2007 it cannot be stated that the complaint filed by her is false, as observed by the Forum in its order dated 20.02.2007. Eventhough, there is no dispute with regard to failure on the part of the complainant (appellant herein) to attend the hearing on the scheduled viz., 02.02.2007, it cannot be stated that fair opportunity was given to the complainant to substantiate her claim before the Forum.

6. The conduct of the complainant (appellant herein) subsequent to disposal of the complaint filed by her by the Forum on 20.02.2007 is also not satisfactory. After lapse of more than seven months since disposal of her complaint by the Forum as mentioned above, she filed the present appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman. The appellant filed a petition to condone the delay in preferring the appeal on the ground that she was suffering with ill health and was under medical care for long period. But she has not produced any evidence to prove the same. However, under the circumstances stated in the petition, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was numbered.

7. As the Forum below decided the matter in the absence of the complainant (appellant herein), the Ombudsman is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the Forum below is directed to examine the grievance raised by the complainant in her complaint filed before the said Forum afresh after giving an opportunity to be heard to the complainant as well as the respondents.

8. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Forum below for redressal of the grievance(s) of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint filed before the Forum. In view of the above, the Ombudsman refrains to delve into the merits of the case, except directing the Forum below to complete the enquiry as early as possible.

9. In the result the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Forum in C.G.No: 78/2006-07/ Hyderabad (South) Circle dated 20.02.2007 and the matter is remanded to the Forum for consideration of the grievance(s) of the complainant (appellant herein) afresh after giving an opportunity to the complainant and respondents. Both the complainant and respondents are directed to appear before the Forum on 05.02.2008 without fail. After the appearance of the parties by fore the Forum below on 05.02.2008, the Forum below is directed to proceed further in the matter as per the directions of the Ombudsman as stated and dispose of the complaint at an early date.

This order is corrected and signed on 10^th day of January, 2008.