BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN
Present
K.Rajagopala Reddy, Director (Law) and
Vidyut Ombudsman
Dated:24-09-2008
Smt. Indiramma W/o Sudarshanam,
Agriculturist, R/o
Madigubba village,
Atmakur Mandal,
Anantapur Dist. … Appellant
1. The Superintendent Engineer/ APTransco/S.E.
Office/ Anantapur
2. The Divisional Engineer/APTransco/Distribution/ Anantapur
3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer/Operation/ Rural West/ APCPDCL
/ Anantapur
4. The Asst. Accounts Officer/ERO/Rural West / APCPDCL /
Anantapur
5. The Assistant Engineer/ Operation Distribution/ APTransco/
Atmakur Post & Mandal / Anantapur Dist.
6. The General Manager / Customer Services /
APCPDCL / Corp.office / Hyd.
… Respondents
The appeal / representation received on 24.03.2008 has come
up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 11.09.2008. The husband of
appellant and Sri K.L.N. Prasad, Advocate on behalf of appellant are
present. Respondent No. 2 is present on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and having stood over for consideration till
this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum for Redressal of
Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short the “Forum”) in C.G. No. 09/ 2007-08
/ Anantapur Circle dated 23.02.2008,
the appellant filed an appeal / representation received in the office of Vidyut
Ombudsman on 24.03.2008 stating that:
(i) the finding of the Forum that the appellant (complainant before the Forum) has not produced any documentary evidence to establish that the land in S.F No. 139 of Madigubba village is in her possession and enjoyment is beyond the scope of the case;
(ii) the Forum ought to have drawn adverse inference for not filing written submissions by the respondents;
(iii) the findings of the Forum cannot stand legal scrutiny;
(iv) eventhough, the Forum framed issue No.6 dealing with deficiency of service on the part of respondents, no finding is given by it on the said issue. The Forum failed to take into consideration the judgment relied upon by the appellant with regard to deficiency of service of the respodents;
(v) the observation of the Forum that the appellant failed to lodge complaint with the police is not proper, as loss of poles and wire was informed to the respondents and it is their responsibility to lodge complaint with the police;
(vi) for the reasons mentioned above, it is prayed that the Vidyut Ombudsman may be pleased to set aside the findings of the Forum and (a) award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant and (b) pass orders to restore electricity supply by laying poles and wire without insisting for payment of any money from the appellant, as such amount was already paid by her earlier.
2. 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” (for short “Regulation No.1 of 2004”) the Vidyut Ombudsman is required to promote settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. However, upon perusal of record Vidyut Ombudsman is of the view that there is no possibility of settlement of the grievance of the appellant by way of mutual consent between the parties. Therefore, by notice dated 15.05.2008, Vidyut Ombudsman directed the respondents to file written submissions / counter and a copy of the appeal / representation of the appellant is forwarded to the respondents.
3. On behalf of the respondent No.3, Sri
A.Narahari, AAE / Operation / APCPDCL / Atmakur filed written submissions dt:
25.06.08 stating that:
(i) the Forum did not give finding on the
title of the land, but has gone into the fact of extent of land under
irrigation as it is not established by the appellant;
(ii) the appellant has not approached the
Vidyut Ombudsman with clean hands. The
quantum of revenue from the lands depends on several factors. The appellant failed to establish its case
on the said aspect as pointed out by the District Consumer Forum in
C.D.No.40/2003;
(iii) the appellant’s family is having 4
service connections in the village; ASC Nos. 152 and 154 which are subject
matter before the Vidyut Ombudsman and two other connections ASC Nos. 153 and
155 at a different location in the same village. But as per rules, a single family should not have more than 3
agricultural connections. If so,
consumption charges will be billed at Rs.2/- per unit;
(v) along with
the written submissions the Addl. Assistant Engineer filed copies of certain
documents relating to the matter;
4. The issue that arises for consideration
of the Vidyut Ombudsman is “whatever the appellant is entitled for the reliefs
prayed viz., (a) award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and (b) restoration of
supply of electricity without payment of any money as the same was paid
previously”.
5. Heard the arguments of the parties
concerned. Perused the record. On the date of hearing on 11.09.2008 Counsel
for the appellant filed “Written Arguments” on behalf of the appellant
reiterating contentions of the appellant as mentioned in her appeal /
representation mentioned supra and further stated that:
(i) as the property lost belongs to
department of the respondents, it is the duty of the respondents to lodge
complaint with the police;
(ii) the appellant did not conceal any
material fact;
(iii) the counsel also submitted copies of (a)
judgments reported in 1998 (2)CPR 277 of State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Bhopal, MP and (c) that of State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Appeal No. 308/1993.
6. Coming
to the first relief claimed by the appellant viz., award of compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/-, it is necessary to refer to the definition of “complaint”
provided in clause 2(d) of Regulation No.1 of 2004 (APERC Establishment Of
Forum and Vidyut Ombudsman for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers) which
reads as follows: -
“2(d) “Complaint” means the letter or application
filed with the Forum seeking redressal of grievances concerning the supply of
electricity or the services rendered by the licensee”
As seen from the above definition,
Forums constituted under the said Regulation have power to deal with the letter
or application filed with them seeking redressal of grievances concerning the
supply of electricity or the services rendered by the licensees. The Forums have not been vested with the
power to grant monetory compensation for loss of crops. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the
order of the Forum below in the present case with regard to rejecting the claim
of the complainant (appellant herein) for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for
loss of crop.
7. Coming to the second relief viz.,
restoration of supply of electricity without payment of any money as the same
was already paid earlier, it is on record that the company of respondents is
prepared to lay electrical line and extend supply to ASC Nos. 152 and 154 of
the appellant, as per the terms and conditions of supply. On 03.03.2008 respondent No.3 addressed a
letter to the appellant seeking her consent for extending supply. It is not known whether the appellant gave
her consent or not.
8. Whatever it might be, it is an admitted
fact that electrical poles and wire are property of distribution licensees /
companies, in this case APCPDCL. If any
pole and wire laid for extending electrical supply to any consumer are
destroyed, damaged or stolen, it is the responsibility of such distribution
company to rectify the damaged pole(s) and / or wire or re-erect pole(s) and /
or wire stolen and restore supply to the consumers. The only question that falls for consideration of the Vidyut
Ombudsman is whether the appellant is now required to pay any amount to the
respondents for laying the electrical line and to extend supply to ASC Nos. 152
and 154. In view of the fact that
electrical poles and wire are property of the company of the respondents as
mentioned supra, the further question of collecting any money from the appellant
for laying electrical line and extending supply to ASC Nos. 152 and 154 of the
appellant will not arise.
9. Because of afflux of time of more than
10 years, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be
served by going into details of disappearance or theft of electrical pole(s)
and /or wire, which supplies power to ASC Nos. 152 and 154; or the subsequent facts of reporting the
matter by the appellant to the respondent concerned; or the alleged inaction on
behalf of respondent concerned in lodging complaint with the police; or any
other matter connected thereto. For the
said reason, the Vidyut Ombudsman is not inclined to give any finding on any of
the said facts.
10. For all the reasons mentioned above, the
Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that interest of justice will be met if
respondents are directed to restore power supply to ASC Nos. 152 and 154 at the
earliest by laying line and connecting wire without collecting any money from
the appellant for the said purpose. Further,
except claiming compensation for loss of crop due to non-availability of
electrical supply to ASC Nos. 152 and 154, the appellant did not produce
sufficient material to substantiate the quantum of claim. Therefore, the Vidyut
Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant any compensation
for loss of crop. Further, the Vidyut Ombudsman is not inclined to direct the
respondents to adjust Rs.7,000/- supposed to have been paid by the appellant
earlier in future bills as the said relief was not claimed in the appeal /
representation of the appellant received by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 24.03.2008,
but such claim was made only in the written arguments filed on behalf of the
appellant on the date of hearing viz., 11.09.2008. Moreover, the appellant has not produced any proof of payment of
electricity bills before the Ombudsman. Apart from it, the appellant claims
that she paid the said amount eventhough there is no power supply to her
service connection during that period.
But, there is no material on record to show that the concerned
respondent issued bills demanding the appellant to pay the said amount during
that period.
11. Accordingly, the Vidyut Ombudsman passes
an award directing the respondents to restore power supply to ASC Nos. 152 and
154 by laying poles and the required electrical wire, without collecting any
money from the appellant. But such
restoration of power supply to S.C.Nos.152 and 154 is subject to payment of
electricity charges from the date of restoration as per rules.
12. If the above mentioned award (in
paragraph 11) is acceptable to the appellant herein, she is required to send a
‘Letter of Acceptance’ to respondent No. 3 herein stating that the award is in
full and final settlement of her claim, within one month as required under
sub-clause 6 of clause 12 of Regulation 1 of 2004. After receipt of such
‘Letter of Acceptance’ from the appellant, the respondents are directed to
comply the award within 15 days from the date of receipt of such letter from
the appellant and intimate compliance of the award to the Vidyut
Ombudsman.
13. Accordingly,
the appeal is partly allowed.