N.PRAKASH RAO Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER APSEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

(2.) The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the owner of H.No. 7-10-995 and other adjacent houses having power connections bearing S.C. Nos. (1. M4-72117, (2. M4-20371, (3. M4-77139, (4. M4-77030, and (5) M4-17836. He has been paying the monthly bills from time to time regularly. Out of them service connections 1, 3, and 4 belong to him. While so R3 A.E. of electricity board issued a notice dt. 30.1.2008 alleging that S.C. Nos. M4-6207 & M4-29231 would be stopped as there were outstanding arrears of Rs. 11,094/- and Rs. 6,845/- respectively. He threatened that he would disconnect all the above five service connections if the said outstanding amounts were not paid. In fact the S.Cs mentioned above belong to one Smt. K. Bhagya Laxmi W/o. Devender as per the decree in partition suit O.S. No. 16/1975 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad filed by one Krishna Rani wife of brother of the complainant and K. Baghya Laxmi. The decree holder filed E.P. in the above said suit, accordingly possession was delivered to K. Baghya Laxmi on 18.10.1985. Since then she has been enjoying the same. The municipality also mutated the said portion in her name. Only service connections were not transferred in her name. She has been enjoying the same for the last two years. Since she has utilized the power she was liable to pay and due to her non-payment, his service connections cannot be disconnected. The very service connection was given to him in the year 2005 after satisfying with his statement about properties allotted to the share of K. Bhagya Laxmi. The said service connections are situated in the ground floor. The first floor of the building belongs to K. Bhagya Laxmi. The electricity board had committed a mistake in not rectifying their records about the ownership. Therefore he sought the respondents to withdraw demand notice, pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation besides costs.

(3.) The respondent electricity board resisted the case. It alleged that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as he was not a consumer. Since the service connections stood in the name of the complaint, arrears were rightly claimed. He executed an agreement for supply of power. By virtue of Section 42.3(d. and Section 49 of the Electricity Act the electricity board was empowered to disconnect all or any of the other services of the consumer though such services be distinct and are governed by separate agreements and though no default was occurred in respect thereof. No intimation or transfer application for transfer of the service connections was made up till now. The service connections are in the name of complainant. There was no cause of action to file the complaint and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.