Appeal No. 13 of 2007

Between

N. Kesava Rao,

Flat No. 401, Vintage Manor,

Plot No. 67, Road.No.7,

Jyothi Colony, Near AOC Centre,

Secunderabad – 500 015. ……. Appellant

And

1. Divisional Engineer (Operation), City – V, APCPDCL, Secunderabad

2. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operation), 132/33 kV SS, APCPDCL, Gunrock, Gymkana, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad.

3. Superintending Engineer/North Circle, APCPDCL, Mint Compound, Hyderabad

.……. Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 04.04.2007 (received on 07.04.2007) of the appellant has come up for settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 19.12.2007, 05.01.2008 and 23.01.2008 in the presence of Appellant Sri.N. Kesava Rao and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

By an order dated 20.02.2007 in C.G. No. 74 / 2006-07 / Hyderabad (North) Circle, the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short the Forum) disposed of the compliant filed before it stating that there is no deficiency in supply or in service rendered by the respondents. The Forum further stated that there is no financial loss sustained by the appellant (complainant therein). However, the Forum directed that due care shall be taken by the respondents to record the data accurately pertaining to the consumers while releasing services in Complexes / Apartments and that necessary corrections in the data shall be carried out promptly and monitored collecting agencies like e-seva centers, etc.

2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed representation dated 04.04.2007, which contains narration of events relating to correspondence made by the appellant herein with the officials of APCPDCL and the events subsequent to filing of compliant before the Forum. Whatever it may be, the grievance of the appellant is that the Forum below did not record depositions in his presence and therefore adverse comments made by it either directly or indirectly do not deserve attention. Further, the direction of the Forum to make necessary corrections in the data is nothing but legalizing the illegal actions.

3. Thereafter, the appellant submitted another representation dated 04.05.2007 by registered post, again narrating certain events subsequent to passing the order dated 20.02.2007 by the Forum below. The appellant submitted another representation dated 17.07.2007 stating that he suffered financial loss because of swapping of meters and requested the Ombudsman to amend, withdraw or cancel the order of the Forum dated 20.02.2007.

4. During the hearing before the Ombudsman on 20.11.2007 the appellant stated that the service connection was rectified after passing the order by the Forum below on 20.02.2007. However, he further stated that the statements recorded by the Forum is not correctly reflected in the order of the Forum and requested that the file relating to the matter may be summoned from the Forum below. Accordingly, on 21.11.2007 a requisition was sent to the Forum below to send the original record relating to the compliant of the complainant therein (appellant herein).

5. During the hearing on 19.12.2007, the appellant verified photocopy of his statement sent by the Forum. However, the appellant requested that the note book in which the statement as recorded by the Forum on 29.01.2007 may be summoned. Accordingly, on 20.12.2007 another requisition was sent to the Forum below to send the original long register in which the statement of appellant and respondent No. 1&3 before the Forum as recorded by the Forum for perusal by the Ombudsman. However, inspite of sending reminder on 05.01.2008, the said register is not received from the Forum.

6. Heard the arguments of the appellant as well as the 2^nd respondent on 23.01.2008. Perused the file submitted by the Forum in regard to the present case.

7. The appellant herein and the complainant before the Forum is the father of Sri N. Ramakrishna, who is the owner of Flat No. 402, Plot No. 67, Jyothi colony, AOC Centre, Secunderabad. All along the appellant is representing his son with regard to the subject matter on hand.

8. The contention of the appellant /complainant before the Forum is that originally electric supply was given to Flat No. 401, Plot No. 67, Jyothi Colony, A.O.C. Centre, Secunderabad under Service Connection No. 24843. Similarly, service connection bearing No. 24792 was provided to Flat No. 402 purchased by Sri N. Ramakrishna which was earlier to the purchase of Flat No. 401. The further contention of the appellant is that the SC No. 24843 which was originally allotted to the Flat No. 401 was changed to the Flat No. 402 and the SC No. 24792, which was allotted to the Flat No. 402 was changed to the Flat No.401. Because of such interchange of services, the appellant is put to financial loss right from the year 2001.

9. The Forum below on taking the evidence of complainant and respondents 1 and 3 has come to a conclusion that there is no deficiency in supply or in service rendered by the respondents and there is no financial loss sustained by the complainant and the complaint was disposed off accordingly. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum below the complainant filed the present appeal contending that the finding of the Forum that there is no deficiency in supply or in service rendered by the respondents is not correct and the said finding is liable to be set aside.

10. After the disposal of the complaint preferred by him before the Forum, the concerned authorities of the respondents restored the S.C. No. B-24843 category-I to Flat No. 401and S.C.No. B-24792 also of category-I to Flat No.402. If the finding of the Forum that there is no deficiency in service rendered by the respondents is correct, the concerned authorities ought not have restored S.C. No. 24843 to Flat No. 401 (belonging to the son of the appellant / complainant). There is force in the contention of the appellant that originally the S.C.No.24843 was allotted to Flat No. 401 and S.C.No. 24792 was allotted to Flat No. 402.

11. During the course of submissions made by the appellant before the Ombudsman he has stated that deposition of respondents as mentioned in the order of the Forum was not recorded in his presence and the depositions of the respondents 1&3 which were recorded in his presence at the time of hearing before the Forum are different from the depositions of respondents as mentioned in the order of the Forum. Under the above circumstances the Vidyut Ombudsman felt that it is necessary to call for the records pertaining to this case from the Forum and accordingly a letter was addressed to the Forum on 20.11.07 (dispatched on 21.11.07). In response to the said letter the Forum below submitted the file pertaining to this case. On 19.12.07 Sri N. Kesava Rao after verifying the file has stated that the photostat copies of statements of the respondents submitted by the Forum are not the statements recorded by the Forum in his presence on the date of hearing before the Forum. The appellant further stated that the statements are recorded in a Long Register (Long Notebook) by the Forum. Under the above circumstances a letter was addressed to the Forum to send the notebook in which the evidence of respondents was recorded and the matter was adjourned to 05.01.2008. On 05.01.2008 the matter could not be proceeded further since the appellant was not present and requested time for adjournment through phone. As the notebook which was called for from the Forum is not received by the Vidyut Ombudsman office, another letter was sent to the Forum below to send the said register without fail on or before 23.01.08. But the Forum below did not show any interest in sending the said register. Even the Ombudsman has not received any reply from the Forum below as to why the said register could not be sent to the Vidyut Ombudsman. It is evident from the conduct of the Forum that it is not inclined to send the register to the Vidyut Ombudsman even though further time was granted for sending the same. Under the above circumstances there is force in the contention of the appellant that the statements of R1&R3 recorded by the Forum as mentioned in its order dt: 20.02.2007 may not be the statements that were recorded by it on the date of hearing of the matter by the Forum by drawing an adverse inference.

12. Whatever it may be, after disposal of the complaint by the Forum, the authorities concerned of the respondents restored the S.C. No. B-24843 category-I to Flat No. 401 and S.C.No.B-24792 category –I to Flat No. 402, on representation of the appellant. Thus, the grievance of appellant is resolved by the authorities concerned by restoring the original connection pertaining to Flat No. 401. The Vidyut Ombudsman called for the concerned record from R2 with regard to change of restoration of original service connection to the Flat No. 401. As per the said record on 30.05.07 the appellant herein sent a representation to the SE/CPDCL requesting him to arrange to restore SC No. B-24843 to his Flat as originally allotted in the place of S.C.No.B-24792 which actually belonging to Flat No. 402. The said record would disclose that on the representation of the appellant - the SE addressed a letter to the DE/Operation vide Memo No. SE/OP/N/Hyd/D.no.451/07 date: 02-06-07 directing the DE to take necessary action as per the departmental rules and report compliance. Thereafter the DE endorsed the same to ADE/Marredpally for taking further action as per the Endt: DE/Op/City-V/Sec’bad/F-Tech/D.no.998 dt: 11-06-07. Thereafter the Additional Assistant Engineer addressed a letter to the Asst.Accounts officer/ERO vide Lr.No. AAE/Op/Karkhana-67/D-XIX/City-V/N/Sec-bad/D.no.109/07 dt: 27-06-07. The said letter was addressed by AAE to AAO for restoring the SC No. 24843 to Flat No. 401 and SC No. 24792 to Flat No. 402. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as:

“ With reference to the above, the Asst. Divisional Engineer/Op/D-XIX/Marredpally has visited office of the Addl.Asst.Engineer/Op/Karkhana and found facts as follows from SCAR and also visited both the consumers and met Sri N. Kesava Rao, Flat No. 401, and Smt. V.T.R. Uma Maheswari, Flat No. 402.

The S.C.No. B-24792 was originally allotted to Flat No. 402. Vintage Manor and the S.C.No. B-24843 was originally allotted to Flat No. 401, initially both the services were released in the name of Sri L.Narayan Reddy, the builder. Later during the name transfer when the builder applied, the Service Nos. got interchanged with Flat Nos. erroneously.

As per the record S.C. No. B-24792 Cat-I restored to Flat no. 402 and S.C. No. B-24843/Cat-I restored to Flat No. 401, in the field with the new meters.”

13. As per the above letter S.C.No. B-24792 was originally allotted to Flat No. 402 and SC No. B-24843 was originally allotted to Flat No. 401, both of which connections were initially released in the name of Sri L.Narayan Reddy, Builder. Later during the name transfer when the builder applied for transfer, the service connection numbers got interchanged erroneously.

14. Even if the builder applied for change of names in respect of the above mentioned service connections, it is the duty of the authorities concerned to verify with their records whether service numbers mentioned in the transfer applications were originally allotted to the owner of flat concerned. As mentioned above, only after the disposal of the complaint by the Forum, the authorities concerned verified the record, inspected the service connections on the spot, noticed the interchange of the service connections of Flat Nos. 401 and 402 and rectified the mistake by restoring the original service connections to the respective Flats. Hence, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that finding of the Forum that there is no deficiency in supply or in service rendered by the respondents to the appellant / complainant is not correct and it is liable to be set aside.

15. With regard to other finding of the Forum that there is no financial loss sustained by the complainant, it is necessary to refer to the fact that the appellant / complainant has stated that there is no complaint made about the creeping of meter and also not protested about the bills issued earlier, before the Forum. The material which is on record would not disclose that the complainant has made out prima facie case that because of interchange of service connection numbers between 401 and 402 he sustained financial loss of a particular amount. Hence, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the view that the finding of the Forum below that there is no financial loss sustained by the appellant / complainant is to be sustained.

16. For the reasons stated above, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the view that the finding of the Forum below that there is no deficiency in supply or in service rendered by the respondents to the appellant / complainant is not correct and therefore, the said finding of the Forum below is set aside. The other finding of the Forum below that there is no financial loss sustained by the appellant / complainant is confirmed. As the respondents concerned have already restored the original S.C. No. 24843 to Flat No. 401 there is no necessity to pass any order in this appeal. This appeal is disposed off with the above observations.

This order is corrected and signed on 5^th day of February, 2008.