VIDYUT
OMBUDSMAN
5th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills,
Hyderabad –500 004.
Present: S. Surya Prakasa Rao, Ombudsman
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy,
S/o Nagi Reddy,
Chinna Kamapalli
Chowdepalli Mandal
Chittor District,
S.C.No.46 ...….. Appellant
And
1. The Assistant
Engineer/Operation/Chowdepalli
2. The Assistant Divisional
Engineer/Operation/Punganur.
3. The Assistant Accounts
Officer/ERO/Punganur.
4. The Divisional
Engineer/Operation/Madanapalle ……. Respondents
This is an appeal (representation dated
nil and received on 28-09-06) made by Sri. Mekala Narsimha Reddy (also known as
Kavvam Narsimha Reddy and hereinafter called as the appellant) against the
Order dated:26-08-2006 of the Forum for the Redressal of Grievances of
Consumers (hereinafter called as the Forum or CGRF) SPDCL, Tirupati in
C.G.No.46/2006-07/Tirupati circle, coming up for consideration before the
Ombudsman and having stood over till this day, the Ombudsman issues the
following: -
ORDER
2. The facts in this case are briefly narrated
herein. The Agricultural service
bearing connection No. 46 of Chinakammapalle Distribution, was released on
30-10-1989 with a contracted Load of 3HP in the name of Sri M. Narsimha Reddy,
for his Pumpset Located in SF No. 210-5. The said land under SF No. 210-5
belonged to Sri. Mallela Narsimha Reddy. While it is so, another person Sri.
Mekala Narsimha Reddy, claiming to be the real consumer, started paying the
electricity bills for the same service connection No.46 of
chinakammapalle. Subsequently, after a
long time (recently) the staff of SPDCL have informed the appellant (orally)
that this service connection No.46 belongs to Sri. Mallela Narsimha Reddy, S/o.
Narsa Reddy of Mallelavaripalli and hence he cannot use the pumpset with S.C.No
46. Then the appellant started
asserting his ownership of S.C.No.46 by producing various documents. The
respondents however do not agree with these documents and hold that the
appellant is not a genuine consumer as no sanction was given for his pumpset
and use of power by him with S.C.No.46 is un-authorized. The respondents have
also stated that this matter was got enquired by the circle Inspector/ APTS,
Tirupati who confirmed that the real owner of the S.C. No46 at S.F.No.210-5 is
Sri.Mallela Narsimha Reddy, S/o Narsa Reddy. The appellant then took the matter
to the Forum of SPDCL through his complaint dated 13-07-2006. The learned Forum
rejected the claim of this appellant in its order dated 26-08-2006 in CGNO.
46/2006-07, on the ownership of S.C.No 46 of chinnakammapalle. Hence this
appeal
3. In his appeal, Sri. Mekala Narsimha
Reddy, has stated as follows:
i.
He is not aware of the
SF Number of the land and does not know whether the SF.No. 216 or any other
number was mentioned in the agreement, but it is a fact that he gave agreement
about 18 years back
ii.
He is paying
electricity bills regularly since 1989-90 and it is not correct to say that he
is availing supply un-authorisedly under S.C.No.46.
iii.
The issue of service
No. 46 surfaced when a new service was released to Mallela Narsimha Reddy’s
elder brother’s son about 2 months back, for which the AE/Chowdepalli took Rs.
25,000 as stated in the earlier complaint.
The appellant enclsed photo copies of
identity card issued by the Election Commission on 15-12-2005, cover page of
pass book bearing S.C. No.46, chinakammapalle Distribution and some receipts
for the payments made against S.C. No.46.
4. Subsequently he sent another
representation (received on 05-10-2006) with additional material i.e. copy of
pattadar pass book issued by MRO, chowdepalli in which his name was written as
Kavvam Narsimha Reddy S/o Nagi Reddy and the land holdings of Kavvam Narsimha
Reddy were given. He also produced an acknowledgement dated 04-02-2006 issued
by the panchayat Secretary regarding receipt of application for “Kutumba Upadhi
Pathakam” certificate in which the words “Kavvam” were added above the normal
surname “Mekala”, to indicate that he is also called with surname of “Kavvam”.
He also enclosed a colour photo of pole No. A-13 with S.C No.46-3HP painted on
it and with a DTR erected on it. He
stated in this second representation that, being a small poor farmer it would
not have been possible to erect 13 poles for the transformer at his pumpset, if
it is un-authorised. He also stated that in the passbook given by APSEB to the
other party, the name was mentioned as Mallela Narsimha Reddy, Mallelavaripelli
and in the pass book given to him it was mentioned as M. Narsimha Reddy of
chinakammapalle. Hence it is not correct to say that he got the passbook of
Mallela Narsimha Reddy from the staff. As he paid charges for 18 years, he
requested to confirm S.C. No.46 for his service.
5. As per clause 8(1)(c) and clause 11 of
the Hon’ble APERC the Ombudsman is required to endeavour to arrive at settlement
by mutual agreement. Accordingly a notice was issued on 05-10-2006 for
settlement by mutual agreement by 28-10-2006, and if no settlement is reached
the respondents were required to file counters by 06-11-2006 and the appellant
shall file his rejoinder if any, by 18-11-2006. The hearing was fixed on 28-11-2006, but later by notice dated 28-10-2006, the
schedule was modified as follows to facilitate hearing along with another case
(Appeal No.21 of 2006) also at Madanapalle on a single day.
Filing of counter
respondents - 04-11-2006.
Filing of rejoinder if any
by appellant - 14-11-2006.
Date of hearing - 20-11-2006.
As no settlement was reached, the respondents filed
their counter, which was received on 07-11-2006. The appellant filed his
rejoinder dated 13-11-2006 which is
received on 16-11-2006.
6. In the counter, the respondents have
stated as follows.
(i) The
S.C.No.46 of chinnakammapalle Distribution in Chowdepalle Mandal was released in
the name of Sri. M. Narsimha Reddy in S.F No.210-5 for a contract load of 3HP
on 30-10-1989.
(ii) As
per Revenue records, only Mallela Narsmha Reddy is having land in S.F.No.210-5.
Further the appellant has no land either in 210-5 or 216 to 210
(iii)
The matter was brought
to the notice of circle Inspector/APTS Tirupati, who confirmed that real owner
of S.C. No46 is Mallela Narsimha Reddy
S/o Narsa Reddy.
(iv)
There is no need for
erection of new lines as stated by appellant as his well is in the midst of
already erected lines.
(v)
The payments are
accepted against any service irrespective of who pays that amount.
(vi)
The appellant is making
efforts to illegally get his service under free power
7. In his rejoinder dated 13-11-2006, the
appellant re-iterated all the contentions raised earlier in the appeal and
subsequent representation and alleged that the respondent No.1 colluded with
Mallela Narsimha Reddy and took bribe from him and created nominal records in
favour of Mallela Narsimha Reddy. He also questioned how that service can be
sanctioned in S.F.No. 210-5 where the Land holding is only 0.8 cents. He
requested to do natural justice to the appellant.
8. The parties in the appeal were heard on
20-11-2006 at Madanapalle, in the office of DE/Operation/Madannapalle (respondent
No.4) Sri M.
Subramanyam S/o Mekala Narsimha Reddy, and Sri A. Raja Reddy a relative of the
appellant have attended the hearing on behalf of the appellant. They narrated
the same points of the appeal and said that Mekala Narsimha Reddy is the owner
of S.C.No.46 and requested to confirm the same. They relied on the erection of
DTR under HVDS at their well and asserted that the DTR was erected as they are
correct owners of S.C.No.46.
9. On behalf of respondents, Sri K.S.Y.Shariff,
DE(Operation) Madannapalle, (respondent No.4), Sri N. Eshwar Reddy,
ADE(Operation) I/C, Punganur (respondent No.2) Sri B. Sreedhar,
AAO/ERO/Madannapalle, (respondent No.3) and Sri C. Seshadri Reddy
AE/Operation/chowdepalle attended the hearing. All the four respondents have
reitreated the contentions made in their counter. On a question from the
Ombudsman as to how S.C.No46 was painted on the pole at LOC No.A-13 near the
well of Mekala Narsimha Reddy if he is not the holder of S.C.No.46, they said that
pole numbers were painted by the contractor without the presence of Licensee’s
staff and with the information given by the person belonging to the appellant.
When I questioned about pole number from which the service No.46 for Mallela
Narsimha Rao was released, they replied that no number was painted in that
pole. The Ombudsman by notice dated 21-11-2006 asked the respondent No.2 to
furnish details of the service for which a DTR was erected at the well of the
appellant (3HP Load) at LOC No.A-13 and also the details of DTR erected for
S.C.No.46 at SF No.210-5 and the services it covers. By the same notice, the respondent No.3 was also asked to furnish
the details of payments made by each claimant right from the year of release of
service (1989), Both the respondents have furnished the replies with copies to
the appellant.
10. In the background of the above rival
contentions, the point for consideration is
“whether the appellant Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy is
the registered consumer to whom the electricity supply was sanctioned in 1989?”
11. This is a typical case of complications
arising out of non-availability of any equipment/instrument/material of the
Licensee for identification of sanctioned Agricultural connections as distinct
from un-authorised connections. Be that
as it may, the facts from relavant records will be examined to deduce the point
in the appeal.
12. During the hearing, the respondents have
produced the records pertaining to this connection before me. The S.C.No.46 in the service connection
Register of AE/Operation/Chowdepalli is extracted here under.
|
S.C.No. |
Name |
Village |
Distribution |
SF No. |
Cat |
Date of release of supply |
|
46 |
M.Narsimha
Reddy |
Donapalli |
Chinna
Kamma palle |
210-5 |
V |
30-10-1989
Mallelavaripalle |
In the absence of the name of father
and the surname, the only evidence is SF Number, which was recorded as 210/5 in
all the relevant records at the time of release of supply.
The appellant could not produce the required
evidence about the ownership of the land bearing S.F No.210/5. The data of land
holding by him does not contain S.F No. 210-5.
His point that Mekala Narsimha Reddy and Kavvam Narsimha Reddy are one
and the same, is not at all relevant as the said SF No.210/5 is not appearing
either in the land records in the name of Mekala Narsimha Reddy or in the name
of Kavvam Narsimha Reddy. The identity card of Election Commission, sugar card
etc are of no use in the absence of the data relevant to the Agricultural
connection in it. The only relevant material in his possession is the
electricity passbook bearing S.C. No. 46 and a few receipts for the payment
made.
13. The other contentions raised by the
appellant are discussed hereunder:
(a) Payment of Electricity charges: - The
payment of charges without having a sanctioned connection would not qualify for
treating it as a sanctioned connection. This cannot be a ground for claiming
ownership of a connection
(b) Erection of DTR at LOC No. A -13: - The
appellant has stated in his representation which was received on 30-11-2006
(after hearing on 20-11-2006) that the 16 HP DTR is erected at LOC.No.A-13 for
his two services only. (S.C.No.46 and 9, which belongs to his father). The
appellant is mainly relying on this evidence.
The respondent No.2 furnished a sketch in his letter (received on
28-11-2006) which shows that the said DTR of 15 KVA capacity was erected at the
location from which supply was extended to S.C. No.9 (7.5HP) at that location
it self and to another service S.CNo.15 (5HP) at a distance of two poles away.
This sketch is enclosed as Annexure-I. It may be seen from this Sketch that the S.C.No.46 was not
mentioned at the location from where S.C.No.9 and 15 are existing. This
statement is not correct as seen from the sketch in the Annexure, as the said
DTR is feeding an other connection i.e. S.C.No.15 of Sri.M.Bairappa Reddy. Further, the respondent No. 2 has also
furnished the sketch containing the layout of the network in which S.C.No. 46
is covered. This sketch is enclosed to
this order as Annexure-II. In
the face of this evidence, I do not agree with the claim of the appellant that
the DTR was erected at LOC No. A-13 for giving supply to his pumpset situated
at that location, which he is claiming as S.C.No. 46.
(c) Painting of S.C.No.46 the pole at Loc No.A-13:
- During the hearing, the respondents have stated that the contractor who was
entrusted with the work of painting of Location numbers on poles took the help
of Local persons in identifying the services and thus got misguided by the
persons belonging to the appellant. Strangely the said painting does not
contain of S.C.No.9 belonging to the father of the appellant connected from the
same pole. Whether the appellant misguided the contract engaged for the
painting or not, mere painting of an S.C. Number on the pole does not add
strength to the claim for ownership unless the records of licensee show it as a
sanctioned connection. This ground is of no help to the appellant.
14. In the circumstances stated above and
viewed from any angle, the appellant is not entitled to claim ownership of
S.C.No.46 which was sanctioned in favour of Mallela Narsimha Reddy at
S.F.No210/5 in Mallavaripalli of chinnakammapalle distribution.
15. Concluding the above discussion, I decide
the following award in this case.
a) The appellant’s claim that he is the legitimate
consumer of S.C. No.46 of Chinnakammapalle Distribution is not tenable and
hence rejected.
b) The Licensee shall be entitled to take necessary
action according to law and as per guidelines if any for regularizing the
un-authorised Agricultural connections.
16. In this connection, I wish to make some
observations in this matter as follows:
(a) The data furnished by the respondent No.3 in his
letter (received on 04-12-2006) reveals that, in spite of the payments being
made by two persons for S.C.No.46, still an amount of Rs.2951/- being arrears
as on 31-03-2004 was waived, along with such arrears of other agricultural
consumers under State Government Policy.
(b) This shows that the original consumer himself is in
arrears and enjoying the connection merely on the basis of sanction given 18
years ago.
(c)
As per the material on
record, there is no official written communication to the appellant about his
non-entitlement to use the S.C.No. 46 The appellant started defending his case
merely on oral communication through staff of SPDCL. Such oral communications should not be allowed as this practice
may be used to cause inconvenience and hardship to genuine consumers also.
17. The appeal is dismissed with above observations. No costs.