Appeal No. 19 of 2008

Between

Sri. Arella Veeranna

Kolanka Village & Post

Kajuluru Mandalam

East Godavari Dist … Appellant

And

1) The Additional Asst. Engineer / Operation / Gollapalem

2) The Asst. Divisional Engineer / Operation / Rural / Kakinada

3) The Divisional Electrical Engineer / Operation / Kakinada

… Respondents

The representation dated 15-09-2008 of the appellant with regard to implementation of the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, APEDPCL in C.G.No.07/2008, dt. 19.07.2008 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

A W A R D

Aggrieved by non-implementation of the order dated 19-07-2008 passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APEPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 07/ 2008 of East Godavari District, the appellant filed representation dated 15-09-2008 stating that:

(a) he is an old person and aged 85 years and getting old age pension of Rs.200/- from the Government as he hails from a poor family.

(b) He applied for service connection in a call centre at Kakinada and paid Rs.1325/- towards cost of meter. As the distance between the point of supply and his residence is long, he was informed that he had to erect two additional poles for providing supply of electricity and for that purpose he has to pay Rs.3410/-. Accordingly, he obtained loan and paid the said amount and obtained receipt.

(c) On 27.12.2007, a line man from electricity department erected poles and released supply. However, he collected Rs.2500/- towards tractor charges, labour charges. But he did not give any receipt. After 15 days on the advice of his son he contacted the call centre at Kakinada and was informed that he need not pay additional money (Rs.2000/- towards labour charges) as the amount of Rs.3410/- collected earlier from him is inclusive of cost of poles and labour charges. Therefore, he was directed to collect the money back. When contacted the line man and the incharge Assistant Engineer on the refund of Rs.2000/- they did not reply.

(d) Thereafter, he went to call centre of Kakinada and he was advised to approach the Forum. Accordingly, filed a complaint before the Forum and the Forum passed an order on 19.07.2008 directing the respondents that the work shall be awarded to him (complaint before the Forum) and payment may be arranged. However, after more than one month i.e., 06.09.2008, the A.E. came to him obtained his thumb impression and paid Rs.900/- without protesting about the injustice in returning an amount of Rs.900/- only, the A.E. informed that respondent No.2 only directed to refund only Rs.900/- and left the place.

(e) As he is illiterate, poor and old the injustice against to him resulted in lot of mental agony and requests justice may be done.

2. By letter dated 29.07.2008, the Vidyut Ombudsman requested the Chairperson of the Forum to inform whether the order passed by the Forum is complied so as to enable the Vidyut Ombudsman to proceed further in the matter. On 23.07.2008, another reminder was sent to chairperson of the Forum. In response, by letter dated 30.10.2008, the chairperson of the Forum informed the Vidyut Ombudsman that (a) work execution chargers have been paid by respondent No.1 and (b) respondent No.3 conducted enquiry, which revealed no staff of the department has demanded money or taken any money from the appellant. The chairperson of the Forum also forwarded copies of letter dated 10.09.2008 written by respondent No.1, details of work, receipt for Rs.887/-, letter dated 02.08.2008 of respondent No.3.

3. A copy of the letter dated 03.10.2008 referred to above together with enclosures was forwarded to appellant on 13.11.2008 for information and requesting the appellant to inform the Vidyut Ombudsman whether he has got any grievance with regard to implementation of the order dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Forum.

4. In response the appellant sent a letter dated 12.01.2009 stating that he is not satisfied with refund of Rs.900/- and that he is old and infirm and leaves the matter with the Vidyut Ombudsman with a request to do justice.

5. The only issue that arises for consideration of the Vidyut Ombudsman is whether the order dated 19.07.2008 passed by the Forum is complied with and if not, what is the remedy to which the appellant is entitled.

6. As mentioned above in its order dated 19.07.2008 the Forum directed the respondents that work shall be awarded to the appellant consumer (complainant consumer therein) and payment may be arranged and that respondent No.3 shall get the matter enquired in detail and to take action accordingly within 10 days.

7. As seen from letter dated 10.09.2008 of respondent No.1 addressed to chairperson of the Forum, work execution charges were paid as per the calculation mentioned in Agr.No.L.S.Agmnt No.130/2007-08. The date on which the appellant received Rs.887/- is not mentioned on the receipt so as to ascertain whether such payment was made within time in compliance of the order of the Forum. Nothwithstanding the same, the appellant also mentioned that he received the amount. Further, the compliance order of the Forum of respondent No.3 submitted a letter dated 02.08.2008 addressed to chairperson of the Forum stating that he enquired into the matter, and such enquiry made by him revealed that no department staff either demanded or received any money for the purpose of releasing supply to the appellant.

8. It is an admitted fact that electricity supply to the appellant was released. Thus there is no grievance with regard to deficiency of service. The grievance of the appellant relates to collecting additional money by line man on the date of releasing supply, but there is no evidence on record to show that Rs.2500/- was demanded from the appellant for the purpose of releasing electricity supply and such amount was paid by the appellant. On the other hand charges for execution of work of Rs.887/-was refunded to the appellant as mentioned above and enquired as directed by the Forum was conducted. Thus, the directions of the Forum issued in its order dated 19.07.2008 were complied. Thus, there is no merits in the appeal / representation dated 15.09.2008 of the appellant.

Appeal No. 19 of 2008

Between

And

4. In response the appellant sent a letter dated 12.01.2009 stating that he is not satisfied with refund of Rs.900/- and that he is old and infirm and leaves the matter with the Vidyut Ombudsman with a request to do justice.

10. Accordingly, the appeal / representation dated 15.09.2008 of the appellant is dismissed.

This order is corrected and signed on the 31^st day of January 2009.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

Appeal No. 19 of 2008

Between

And

4. In response the appellant sent a letter dated 12.01.2009 stating that he is not satisfied with refund of Rs.900/- and that he is old and infirm and leaves the matter with the Vidyut Ombudsman with a request to do justice.

10. Accordingly, the appeal / representation dated 15.09.2008 of the appellant is dismissed.

This order is corrected and signed on the 31st day of January 2009.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN

This order is corrected and signed on the 31^st day of January 2009.