Appeal No. 9 of 2008

Between

Mr. Mohd. Habeeb Khan,

S/o. Mr. Ghulam Ghousuddin Khan,

H. No. 11-2-557 / 17 / 1,

New MCH No. 2822, New Aghapura,

Hyderabad – 500 001 … Appellant

And

1.Asst. Engineer / Seetarampet Section / Distribution XXV / City IX / APCPDCL/ Hyderabad.

2.The Asst. Divisional Engineer/Operation/ Begumbazar/ Distribution XXV / City IX / .APCPDCL / Hyderabad .

3.The Divisional Engineer/Operation/City IX / Begumbazar / APCPDCL / Hyderabad.

4.The Superintendent Engineer/ Operation / South Circle / APCPDCL / Hyderabad.

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

6.Moin’s Regency Heights Association (Pink House) / Regd. Society / Hyderabad.

7.B.R. Enclave Association / Un-Regd. Association / Hyderabad

… Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 07.05.2008 filed by the appellant (received on 8.05.2008) before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 11.11.2008 and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed / issued the following:

ORDER

The appellant herein filed a complaint dated 07.02.2008 before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short ‘Forum’), APCPDCL requesting the Forum that suitable orders may be passed to relocate transformer to some other safety place to ensure that there will not be any fluctuations in supply, so that the electrical equipment of the consumers will be safeguarded. The said complaint was taken by the Forum as C.G.No.38/2007-08.

2. After recording the statements of both the parties and also on perusing the material on record, the Forum below disposed of the complaint on 26.03.2008 directing the respondent No.2 and the ADE / Op / Begum Bazar to execute the work relating to suitably turning the AB Switch of the transformer erected in the adjacent house of the complainant to maintain adequate clearance to prevent any danger to family members of the complainant within 15 days as promised. Further, the Forum advised the complainant, if he is aggrieved of its order, the complainant could prefer an appeal to the Vidyut Ombudsman.

3. The appellant herein, who is the complainant before the Forum filed this appeal-dated 07.05.2008, which was received by the Vidyut Ombudsman on 08.05.2008 contending that the order passed by the Forum below is erroneous and illegal since the Forum below did not address the main issue which was placed before it. The Forum below without applying its mind passed the order and granted relief with respect to AB Switch and there was no direction in so far as the electrical trasnsformer is concerned. The appellant raised so many grounds in the appeal to substantiate his contention that the order passed by the Forum below in not giving any relief to shift the electrical transformer is not correct.

4. The appeal filed against the orders of the Forum before the Vidyut Ombudsman was taken on file as Appeal No. 9 of 2008. Thereafter, the appellant and the respondents were informed of registering the appeal and further a date will be fixed to promote settlement by way of mutual agreement between the parties. Subsequently, the Vidyut Ombudsman issued a notice to both the parties for their appearance. At the first instance, the appellant, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are present. Thereafter, notices are ordered against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as their presence is necessary to dispose of the appeal since the transformer is situated within the premises of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

5. On 05.09.2008, appellant and his counsel Sri A.V.Raghugram are present. Respondent Nos. 1,2,6 and 7 are also present. As per the docket proceedings dated 05.09.2008 both the parties want to visit the place to see the feasibility of compromising the matter by way of settlement between the parties. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 06.09.2008.

6. On 06.09.2008, the appellant and respondents are present. The respondent Nos. 1 &2 stated that as per the directions of Forum they have changed the AB Switch position and now wires connected to AB Switch from the transformer is not within reach from the appellant premises. It is the submission of the respondent Nos. 1&2 inspite of shifting the AB Switch as per the directions of the Forum, the appellant preferred the present appeal contending that the transformer should be shifted from that place to some other place. It is their further submission that they have no objection to shift the transformer from that place to some other place if the appellant bears the expenses for the same and they should not be any objection from respondent Nos. 6&7 in whose site the transformer is presently located. The respondent Nos 6&7 are not agreeable for shifting of transformer from that place to some other place. The respondent Nos. 1&2 further stated they will provide cable to the wires as safety measures and after providing such cable wires, even if any person comes into contact with the said cable it would not cause any danger to that person. The appellant who is present at that time has stated that if safety measures are taken by the department officials in providing cable to the wires the same would serve his purpose and it is not necessary to shift the transformer from that place to some other place. Thereupon, respondent Nos. 1&2 requested time to provide such cable to the wires at that place. The appellant also agreed for the same. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 15.10.2008.

7. On 15.10.2008, the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are present. The respondents have stated that cable was provided to the wires as agreed earlier by the appellant. The appellant also accepted that the cable is provided to the wires. Even as per the order of the Forum below, the second floor of the complainant house is said to have been constructed subsequent to the erection of the transformer in the adjacent house of the complainant. The respondents have complied with the directions of the Forum below to turn the A.B.Switch suitably to prevent any danger to the family members of the complainant. The complainant / appellant submitted that he want to raise the wall on the terrace of his house and thereby, it can prevent anybody to come into contact of the wires and even after cable is provided and for that purpose, the respondents have to shut down power for some time and required some more time to complete the said work. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 23.10.2008.

8. On 23.10.2008, both the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are present. The appellant requested some more time to complete the construction of wall in his premises. Then the matter is posted to 11.11.2008. On 11.11.2008, neither the appellant or there is representation on behalf of the appellant nor the respondents are present. Under these circumstances, the Vidyut Ombudsman is of the opinion that the dispute is settled between the parties by way of mutual settlement as stated above and no further orders are required to be passed in this appeal by the Vidyut Ombudsman. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

This order is corrected and signed on this 14^th day of November, 2008.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN