Appeal No.17 of 2007

Between

Sri C.Subrahmanyam,

21/368, Gandhi Bazar, Old Town,

Ananthapur. ... Appellant

and

1) Divisional Engineer/Operation/Ananthapur/APCPDCL.

2) Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, Ananthapur/APCPDCL

3) Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Town-Ananthapur/APCPDCL

4) The Divisional Engineer/DPE/Ananthaapur/APCPDCL

5) The General Manager, Customer Services/APCPDCL,

Corporate Office, Hyderabad … Respondents

The representation dated 19.05.2007 of the Appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 06.09.2007 in the presence of the appellant and respondents and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

O R D E R

This appeal arises against the order passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’) in C.G.No: 99/2006-07/ Anantapur Circle dated 27.04.2004.

2. The appellant and others approached the Forum by way of representation in which it is stated that their father Sri Chakka Ramaiah had four sons and in the year 1983 their family got separated and in the year 1990 their father Sri Chakka Ramaiah has expired and that their mother also expired in the year 1993. Since then, they abandoned the premises and the door was locked and no electricity supply is used by them. After some years, when they opened the door, the electricity department people have taken the wrong reading and in 1999 they booked a malpractice case against them. When they approached the electricity department for electricity supply, they have informed that against the H.S.C.No.14530 a malpractice case was booked and a fine of Rs.46,115/- was imposed. The electricity department official have informed to the appellant that unless the outstanding amount is to be paid, no supply was given to the said service number. After receiving the said representation by Forum, the Forum registered a case as C.G.No.99/2006-07 as per Clause 5(7) & (8) of the Regulation 7 of 2004 of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission and issued notice to the respondents requesting the respondents to file the written submissions.

3. Thereafter the respondents filed their written submissions. The gist of written submissions of the respondents is to the effect that the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, Anantapur in his letter No.D.No.67/2007 dated 10.04.2007 has stated that the H.S.C.No.14530 was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer/DPE, Anantapur on 25.09.1999 and booked a case of unauthorized use of electricity while the service was under disconnection and provisional assessment notice was issued for Rs.46,115/-. The consumer has not paid any amount and it was learnt that the said house was continuously under ‘door lock’ from 1993 after the death of Smt.Ramakka, W/o Sri C.Ramaiah Setty.

4. The Forum disposed of the matter on 27.04.2007 stating that since the H.S.C.No.14530 of the complainant was booked under malpractice i.e., for unauthorized use of electricity, the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and accordingly rejected.

5. The order passed by the Forum further disclosed that the complainant was asked to approach the appropriate authorities viz., Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation, Anantapur and Divisional Engineer/Assessments, O/o the Superintending Engineer/Assessments, Hyderabad for finalisation of the malpractice case.

6. Admittedly the present case pertains to a malpractice with regard to a service connection HSC No.14530. When a case is booked under malpractice by the concerned authorities of Electricity Department, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the said matter. Hence the Forum has rightly rejected the complaint filed by the complainant by its order dated 27.04.2007 in C.G.No.99/2006-07/Anantapur Circle. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal. As the matter pertains to malpractice, but does not relate to grievance concerning supply of electricity (or) services rendered by the licensee and because the Forum itself did not has jurisdiction to entertain, the said matter, further question of Ombudsman having jurisdiction with regard to subject matter will not arise. The Ombudsman can entertain matters which come up before it by way of appeals against the orders passed by the Forum where the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain such matters. Even the Forum asked the complainant to approach the appropriate authorities for finalisation of malpractice case.

7. During the course of hearing on 06.09.2007, the appellant who is present has stated that he sent a representation to the Divisional Engineer/Assessments, O/o the Superintending Engineer/Assessments, Hyderabad on 19.05.2007, but nothing was heard from the concerned authority with regard to finalisation of the assessment. Under the above circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice, if the Divisional Engineer/Assessment who is in the O/o the Superintending Engineer/Assessments, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the case of the appellant herein within a reasonable time, in case if any such representation of the appellant is received by him and pending with him. The appellant is directed to send another representation immediately to the O/o Divisional Engineer/Assessments, Hyderabad with regard to his malpractice case.

8. The Divisional Engineer/Assessment, 0/o Superintending Engineer/Assessment, Hyderabad is directed to dispose of the representation of the appellant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order, in case representation of the appellant is pending with him or within three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of appellant in pursuance of the direction given now by the Ombudsman. This appeal is disposed off accordingly.

This order is corrected and signed on 14th day of September, 2007.

VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN