DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Vs. JORIGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.98/2006 on the file of Dist. Forum West Godavari Eluru., the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

(2.) The brief facts as set in the complaint are that the complainant purchased 375 sq.yards of house site from one Y.Krishna Raghavulu. At the time of purchase there was no structure or electrical service connection to the said site. In the year 2003 the complainant constructed asbestos roofed house and obtained electrical service connection with service no.1195 by making application to the 2nd opposite party and paid electrical consumption charges regularly without any default. On 20.6.2006 opposite party no.1 served a notice on the complainant even though it was not addressed to the complainant and was addressed to one K.Anjaneyulu with service no.665 stating that the said K.Anjaneyulu is due an amount of Rs.6,257/- as on 30.4.2002 to the Electricity Department. When the complainant refused to receive the same as it is addressed to one K.Anjaneyulu, the opposite party staff forcibly served on him stating that if the notice is not received the prevailing complainants electrical service connection bearing no.1195 will be disconnected. The complainant submits that the said K.Anjaneyulu alienated his property i.e. the above said site in the year 1994 i.e. on 4.6.1994 to one Putti Nancharamma who in turn alienated the same to one Y.Mahesh through a sale deed dt.15.1.97 who in turn sold it to the complainant. So the said Anjaneyulu was in possession of the said property upto the year 1994. As stated in the notice dt.20.6.2006 , by 30.4.2002 the said K.Anjaneyulu is neither in possession of the above said site nor his service connection no.665 was in existence. On 8.8.2006 inspite of repeated requests the staff of second opposite party disconnected his connection no.1195 even though he was not due any amounts to the Electricity Department. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to restore the Electricity Service connection no.1195 and to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- and to pay costs of the complaint.

(3.) Opposite parties filed their written version admitting sending of disconnection notice to one K.Anjaneylu with service connection no.665 . Opposite party states that as per condition no.8.4 of billing and payment of general terms and conditions of supply, approved by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission the opposite party is authorized to refuse to supply the electricity to the premises if all the dues to the opposite party company are not paid by the seller of the property. Opposite party further stated that as per the provisions of APSEB (recovery of dues) Act 1984 and APSEB (recovery of dues) rules 1985 published in G.O.Ms.No.50 dt.1.10.1985, the opposite party is competent to issue notice as the dues can be recovered as if the dues were an arrear of the land revenue not with standing anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument or agreement having the force of law. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.