Appeal No. 10 of 2008

Between

Mr. Syed Azhar Ahmed Quadri,

H.No. 11-6-825/1/48, Red Hills, Hyderabad. … Appellant

And

1. Asst. Engineer / Operation / APCPDCL/ / Moghalpura / Hyd

2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer/Operation/ APCPDCL / Charminar / Hyderabad

3. The Divisional Engineer/Operation/ APCPDCL / Charminar / Hyd

4. The Asst. Accounts Officer / ERO-III / APCPDCL / Museum Road/ Hyd.

5. The General Manager/ Customer Service / Corp. Office / APCPDCL / Hyd.

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated ‘nil’ filed by the appellant (received on 28.05.2008) has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 15.10.2008 in the presence of Sri. Syed Sharffiuddin on behalf of the appellant and Respondent No. 1 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

AWARD

In the appeal / representation referred to above, it is stated that:

(a) the appellant is the owner of premises Nos. 23-2-420/421/E (a small bit of house) situated at Moghalpura, Hyderabad;

(b) the previous owner of the house let-out the portion, but the tenants failed to pay electricity bills. However, the previous owner paid arrears and ‘No due certificate’ was issued by ERO– III ;

(c ) commercial S.C.No. X2-907586 under Category-II was dismantled and domestic S.C.No. X2-6460 under Category-I was allotted. Payment of CC charges are being made regularly. It is not correct to state that above mentioned commercial service connection is existing. If at all it is existing, the same is wrongly maintained in the records of the section office, which may be deleted;

(d) after dismantling the old dilapidated house and constructing a new house, the appellant applied for new service connection. The appellant was given Form No. A under registration No.39 on 07.03.2006 by the Section Office, Moghalpura, Hyderabad with a request to remit a sum of Rs. 1225/- along with the Form, registered deed, etc. The said amount was remitted through Bankers cheque No.293812 dated 07.03.2006 vide receipt No.52086553140, South Circle. Therefore, the observation of the Forum below that the said Bankers cheque Rs.1225/- was accounted for in Miralam section towards new service connection in favour of Smt. Isharath Khatoon is not correct;

(e) eventhough commercial service connection is changed to domestic connection, subordinates of the respondent department have not been communicated about such change. With the result, huge arrears have been accrued. When appellant applied for new service connection, the same was wrongly denied on the ground of arrears;

(f) therefore, arrears shown may be deleted and new service connection may be released.

2. The respondents were intimated of the filing of the appeal / representation by the appellant.

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. Accordingly, notices were sent to both the parties to appear before the Ombudsman on 04.08.2008 On the said date, a letter authorizing Sri. Syed Sharfuddin Admed Quadri to appear before the Ombudsman on behalf of the appellant was submitted. But, inspite of the best efforts made by the Vidyut Ombudsman, the grievance of the appellant could not be settled by mutual consent between the parties.

4. On 25.08.2008, respondent No.2 filed written submissions stating that:

(a) As per the records available in the office, commercial S.C.No. X2-907586 stands in the name of Syed Shaffiuddin, H.No.23-2-420/421, Moghalpura, Hyderabad and an amount of Rs.73065/- is due against the said service connection.

(b) Premises No.23-2-421/420/E is newly created to avoid payment against the above mentioned ‘under disconnection’ service.

(c ) Appellant has not submitted any DD in the section office and not mentioned the receipt number for new service. In fact DD No.293812 dt.07.03.2006 for Rs.1225/- was encashed on 23.02.2007 by the AO/Expenditure/APCPDCL/Hyderabad in connection with release of new service connection in favour of Smt. Isharath Khatoon. It is pertinent to note that the said DD lapsed on 06.09.2006, the appellant got it revalidated and used it for other service connection, which reveals that the appellant has not submitted any DD for release of new service connection for premises bearing No .23-2-421/420/E, Moghalpura, Hyderabad .

(d) Respondents are ready to provide new service connection to appellant provided he submits a fresh application together with requisite documents, including clearance certificate in respect of S.C.No.X2-907586 (under disconnection) which is existing in the same premises and get it registered in the customer service centre as per decision of the Forum.

5. On the next date of hearing i.e., on 26.08.2008, the representative of the appellant requested the Ombudsman to pass suitable interim orders for release of electricity supply connection pending disposal of the appeal, as the appellant submitted another application together with necessary documents, Accordingly, by an interim order dated 27.08.2008, the vidyut Ombudsman directed the respondents to provide new service connection to the house of the appellant treating the house number as23-2-420 / 421, which is subject to final order to be passed by the Ombudsman.

6. The issue that arises for consideration of the Ombudsman is whether the order passed by the Forum below in the present case is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for a new service connection without payment of arrears who is due for S.C.No.X2-907586 ?

7. The entire issue revolves around arrears pertaining to S.C.No.X2-907586. It is the contention of appellant that the above mentioned service connection, which was under commercial category, was dismantled. Later, domestic service connection X2-6460 was allotted and C.C charges in respect of the said domestic service were being paid regularly. According to the appellant the above mentioned commercial service connection is not existing, but the record pertaining to S.C.No X2-907586 is being wrongly maintained in the section office and has to be deleted. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that S.C.No X2-907586 was released in the year 1987. The said service connection pertaining to H. No. 23-2-420/421, Moghulpura, Hyderabad was placed under bill stop service way back in April 1999 and an amount of Rs.73,065/- was outstanding as on April 1999.

8. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the appeal / representation dated nil filed by the appellant (received on 28.05.2008) wherein it is mentioned that he is the owner of premises Nos.23-2-420/421/E (a small bit of house) and the previous owners of aforementioned house let-out the portion to the tenants, but the tenants failed to pay electricity bill amount to the Department regularly. It is further mentioned by the appellant therein that the arrears accrued for payment of the electricity charges were cleared by the previous owners and ‘NO DUES CERTIFICATE’ clearance certificates have been issued by the ERO-III.

9. When it is contented that the previous owners cleared arrears and clearance certificates have been issued by ERO-III, burden lies on the appellant to produce such certificate. But the appellant has not produced any certificate supposed to have been issued by ERO-III. In the absence of producing ‘No Due Certificate’, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellant that the previous owners paid the arrears.

10. On behalf of the appellant, photocopies of two plans attested by him are filed. In the said plans, it is mentioned that “House at Moghulpura, Hyd D.No.23-II-C-2 1464,1465 (Old No.) subsequent No. Allotted by MCH 23-2-420,421(New No.) Now Megha City No 23-2-619, 620 for the same house (GHMC) Original Owner Sri.Syed Qumaruddin Sub Divided Family Settlement Owners are (i) Syed Mohiuddin 23-2-420,421 / A (ii) Syed Saifuddin 23-2-420,421 / B (iii) Syed Sharfuddin 23-2-420,421 / C (iv) Syed Nasseruddin 23-2-420,421/D (v) Syed Azher AQ 23-2-420,421/E. In one of the plans it is clearly mentioned at the bottom that ‘Family Settlement Sub-Divided House Plan’.

11. The photocopies of two plans filed by the appellant referred to in paragraph-10 above are not part of any official record. Therefore, allotment of A,B,C,D,E to sub-divided portions of the main house 23-2-420/421 cannot be taken into consideration.

12. Further, on behalf of the appellant, copies of four Gift Settlement Deeds all executed by Sri.Syed Qameruddin in favour of his four sons were filed. Registered Deed No. 552 / 1984 in favour of Sri Syed Sharfuddin; 1103/1984 in favour of Sri Syed Mohiuddin; 1452/1985 in favour of Sri Syed Saifuddin and 1455/1985 in favour of Sri.Syed Nasseruddin, were executed. As per the above, Sri Syed Qameruddin is the previous owner and possessor of the house bearing No. 23-2-420/421, Moghulpura, Hyderabad and gifted the same in parts to his sons during the year 1984-85. It is an admitted fact that SC No. X2-907586 (Commercial) was released in the year 1987 to the house bearing No. 23-2-420/421 and the same was placed under ‘bill stop service’ in the month of April 1999 and an amount of Rs.73,065/- was outstanding as on April 1999, as already mentioned above.

13. Thus after execution of Gift Settlement Deeds by Sri Syed Qameruddin as mentioned above, his sons including Sri Syed Sharfuddin became owners of house No. 23-2-420/421. As per copy Deed No. 1498/2005 filed on behalf of the appellant, Sri Syed Sharfuddin executed Gift Settlement on 14.11.2005, in favour of his son viz., the appellant herein. Thus eversince release of S.C.No.X2-907586 in the year 1987 and till it was placed under bill stop service in the year 1999, the house bearing No. 23-2-420/421 is within the family of the appellant. If dues were really paid and ‘No Dues Certificate’ is obtained from ERO-III, burden lies on the appellant to produce the same as mentioned above. As the appellant failed to produce such certificate, adverse inference has to be drawn against him that arrears of electricity charges against S.C.No.X2-907586 were not paid at all, after they became due. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the record pertaining to S.C.No.X2-907586 is being wrongly maintained in the section office and it has to be deleted is liable to be rejected.

14. Gift Settlement Deeds executed by Sri Syed Qameruddin during the year 1984-85 and in the year 2005 by Sri Syed Sharfuddin refer to H.No.23-2-420/421, but not to sub-divided portions as A,B,C,D,E in proof of allotment of such sub-divided house numbers. Similarly, the appellant has not produced any other record to show that in pursuance of gift of a portion of H.No.23-2-420/421, new number 23-2-420/421/E is allotted by the competent authority or that H.No.23-2-420/421/E is assessed for payment of municipal tax etc., by the local authorities. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that H.No.23-2-420/421/E is not at all in existence is to be accepted and they are entitled to demand payment of arrears pertaining to H.No.23-2-420/421 before releasing electricity supply connection as required by the appellant for the said house.

15. At the time of passing interim order on 27.08.2008, it was represented that all necessary material to show that his house bears No.23-2-420/421/E would be filed before final disposal of the appeal. But the appellant failed to prove that his house bears No.23-2-420/421/E. The house in question has to be treated as No. 23-2-420/421, but not as 23-2-420/421/E. The service connection released in pursuance of interim order dt.27.08.2008 has been treated for H.No.23-2-420/421, but not for 23-2-420/421/E.

16. As per law, respondents are entitled to refuse to release electricity supply connection to any premises or disconnect supply, unless arrears of electricity charges are paid. Therefore, Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that in the case on hand, the respondents are entitled to demand payment of arrears of Rs.73,065/- due in respect of H.No.23-2-420/421 from the appellant, before releasing service connection. Accordingly, the point is held in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. The order passed by the Forum below in C.G.No.35/2007-08/ Hyderabad (South) Circle dt. 22.04.2008 is perfectly correct and it is confirmed.

17. However, in this case service connection was released in pursuance of interim orders of the Vidyut Ombudsman in the name of the appellant, without payment of arrears due in respect of H.No.23-2-420/421. The Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that interest of justice will be met if the appellant is given six months time for payment of arrears of Rs.73,065/- in lumpsum or in installments without interest. If the appellant fails to pay the said amount of arrears, the respondent concerned is at liberty to disconnect the service connection, which was provided to the appellant house as per the interim orders after six months from the date of receipt of this order, without further notice. With this observations, the appeal / representation is dismissed.

This order is corrected and signed on this 11th day of November, 2008.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN