BEFORE THE VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN Andhra Pradesh :: Hyderabad :: Present :: N. Basavaiah, B.Sc, B.L. Date: 28-02-2018 Appeal No. 31 of 2017 Between Sri. Challaboyina Satyanarayana, Vaivaka Village, Mudinepalli, Krishna District. ...Appellant/ Complainant And 1 The AE/Operation/APSPDCL/Mudinepalli/Krishna District 2 The ADE/Operation/APSPDCL/Gudiwada-Rural/Krishna District 3 The DE/Operation/APSPDCL/Gudiwada/Krishna District … Respondents The above appeal- representation filed on 15-09-2017 has come up for final hearing before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 17-02-2018 at Vijayawada. The complainant, as well as the respondents 1 and 2 above, was present. Having considered the appeal-representation and the submissions made on behalf of the complainant and the respondents, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed the following: O R D E R 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-complainant against the order dated.02-08-2017 in C.G.No:30/2017-18/Vijayawada Circle, passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances in Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited, Tirupati, whereby and where-under the above Forum dismissed the complaint by stating that new domestic service connection was given by the respondents in the name of Smt.Pilli Padma, on the basis of possession certificates and of an indemnity bond taken, from her. 2. The case of the complainant, Ch.Satyanarayana, in brief, is that during the absence of him and his family at Vaivaka, one Pilli Padma obtained a new domestic electricity service connection bearing number 1113 from the respondents to his house situated in S.No.352 of Vaivaka village. Therefore, he prayed to order for disconnection of the above electricity service connection. The case of the respondents is that the possession certificates Page No 1 of 5 issued by the Secretary of Grama panchayat,Vaivaka and by the then Tahasildar, Mudinepalli is the basis for releasing the electricity service connection in the name of Smt.Padma on 21.5.2013. 3. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by both parties before the Forum. After considering the material available on record, the Forum passed the order stated supra. Now, the complainant preferred this representation against the above order of the Forum. 4. The complainant submitted as per his above case, while the respondents submitted supporting the order of the Forum. 5. The following point is framed for determination: Whether the representation can be upheld? 6. Point: As the Forum, initially, rejected the complaint before it was admitted for hearing, this authority allowed the representation filed by the complainant against the order of rejection of the complaint, set aside the order of the Forum and directed the Forum to admit the complaint for hearing and dispose of the case on merits with an observation made at paragraph 8 of the order that the Forum ought to have considered the point whether the licensee released new service connection in accordance with the procedure specified in the General Terms and Conditions of supply-2006 or not?.But the order of the Forum does not disclose that the Forum looked into and considered the above aspect. Initially, I intended to remand the matter again to the Forum, but, no useful purpose will, in my view, be served by the order of remand again. Hence, I Intend to decide this case on merits. 7. Either the Forum or this authority has to decide the complaint on merits only on the basis of the pleadings and evidence. But in this case, there is no evidence and the material available on record in this case is only pleadings. So, this case is to be decided only on the basis of undisputed facts. Section 43 of the Electricity Act,2003 says that every distribution Page No 2 of 5 licensee, shall, on an application by the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises. Clause 4 (1) of the Regulation No. 4/2013 says that Every distribution licensee shall, on receipt of an application from the owner or occupier of any premises, give supply of electricity to such premises within the time specified in sub-clause (2) subject to payment of fees, charges and security and the due fulfillment of other conditions to be satisfied by such owner or occupier of the premises. Clause 5 .2. GTCS- 2006 deals with the above aspect. Clause 5.2.3 of the GTCS says " an applicant who is not the owner of the premises occupies and intending to avail of supply shall submit an Indemnity Bond drawn by the owner of the premises in favour of the company whereby the owner of the premises undertakes to indemnify the company for any loss caused to the company by the applicant (Who is the tenant/ occupant of the Premises) arising out of the release of service to the tenant/ occupant. Otherwise he shall be required to pay three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises". So, we can understand from the above that either the owner or the occupier of any premises can make an application to the licensee to give supply of electricity and there is an obligation on the part of the licensee to give supply of electricity to such premises. There is no dispute that the occupier of the premises made an application in this case. The words in the above clause of GTCS "Otherwise he shall be required to pay three times the normal security deposit apart from providing proof of his being in lawful occupation of the premises." are to be noted with great significance. It is not the plea of the respondents that the new service connection was given on an application of the owner of the premises or that the occupant is the tenant or the licensee of, the owner of the premises in question. To give a new service connection on an application of the occupier of any premises, other than the tenant or the licensee of the owner, the licensee has to ask the occupant-applicant to pay three times the normal security deposit and to produce proof of his or her being in lawful occupation of the premises. In this case, there is no material to show that the occupier of the premises paid three times the normal Page No 3 of 5 security deposit or that she produced proof as to her being in lawful occupation of the premises. The above two conditions are lacking in this case and we can say easily that the licensee did not follow the procedure laid down in the above clause of the GTCS-2006. The only plea of the respondents in their pleading is that on the basis of possession certificates, electricity service connection was given and the respondents' submission before the Forum is that the indemnity bond from the occupier was taken. The Forum dismissed the complaint on the above two reasons, but, they are not so relevant for releasing a new service connection. As per the above clause of the GTCS, indemnity bond from the owner of the premises is to be submitted and it is not the case herein. So, the plea of the respondents as to their giving service connection on the basis of the possession certificates and their submission before the Forum at the time of hearing that they obtained indemnity bond are irrelevant considerations for releasing a new service connection to the occupier of the premises in question. The above aspects were not considered by the Forum .Since some procedure is laid down in the GTCS, the licensee has to follow it. However, since there is no specific provision of law shown to me that order for disconnection of the electricity of supply can be made if the licensee gives a new service connection without following the procedure laid down in the above clause of the GTCS-2006, I am unable to pass any order in favour of the complainant. Apart from it, even if I order disconnection of electricity connection in this case, it will not be helpful to the complainant in any way and on that basis, he cannot dispossess the occupier from the above premises. The occupier has been enjoying the supply of electricity for more than four years. It is not proper at this stage to order for disconnection of electricity supply given to the occupier. The remedy of the complainant is otherwise at a different place. For the above reasons, the representation cannot be upheld and is liable to be dismissed not on the reasons assigned by the Forum. This point is thus answered. 8. In the result, I dismiss the complaint. Considering the circumstance of this case, I direct both parties to bear their respective costs. Page No 4 of 5 9. This order is corrected and signed on this 28th day of February, 2018. Sd/-N.BASAVAIAH VIDYUT OMBUDSMAN To 1 Sri. Challaboyina Satyanarayana, Vaivaka Village, Mudinepalli, Krishna District – 521 001. 2 The Assistant Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Mudinepalli, Krishna District 3 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Gudiwada-Rural, Krishna District 4 The Divisional Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Gudiwada, Krishna District - Copy to: 5. The Chairman, C.G.R.F., APSPDCL, 19/13/65/A, Sreenivasapuram, Near 132 KV Substation, Tiruchanoor Road, Tirupati – 517 503. 6. The Secretary, APERC, 11-4-660, 4th Floor, Singareni Bhavan, Red Hills, Hyderabad - 500 004. Page No 5 of 5.