State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Sri Vijayalakshmi Enterprises ... vs The Superitending Engineer ... on 5 August, 2011
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
R.P..No.23/2011 against P.P.S.R.No.
/2011 in I.A.No.214/2010 in C.C.No.155/2010 DISTRICT FORUM,PRAKASAM AT
ONGOLE.
Between
M/s.Sri
Vijayalakshmi Enterprises
South Bypass Road, Opp:S.S.Tank-1,
Ongole, represented
by its sole
Proprietor Sri
Neelisetty Yagna
Narayana Prasad,
S/o.late Pandu
Ranga Rao, age 43
years, Hindu,
Business,
R/o.Ongole. Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. The
Superitending Engineer (Operation)
A.P.S.P.D.L., Ongole.
2. The Divisional
Electrical Engineer (Operation)
A.P.S.P.D.L, Ramnagar, Ongole.
3. The Assistant
Divisional Engineer (Operation
Town) A.P.S.P.D.L., Kurnool Road, Ongole.
4. The Additional
Assistant Engineer (Operation)
D3 Section, Lambadi Donka, Ongole.
5. The Assistant
Accounts Officer,
Electricity Revenue Office,
Town
Rajapangal Road, Ongole. Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the
Petitioners : Mr.M.Hari Babu
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.O.Manohar
Reddy
QUORUM:THE HONBLE JUSTICE
SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN.
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President ) ***** Heard both sides This is a revision preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the order of the District Forum in not registering the application moved U/s.27 of C.P.Act, 1986 to punish the respondents for violating the interim order.
The complainant filed the complaint against the respondent, electricity authorities to remove the debit amount of Rs.1,80,506 from his account under Service Connection No.47769 and remove Rs.1,42,510/- under A.C.D. Service connection No.47769 and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-. Along with it, he filed I.A.No.214/2010 to reconnect the service connection. The District Forum by its order dated 18-11-2010 directed the electricity board to restore the service connection.
When the restoration was not made, it has filed the impugned I.A. to punish the respondents with imprisonment and fine on the ground that the order was not complied. The District Forum refused to restore the said application on the ground that the J.Drs. approached the State Commission and filed R.P. 66/2010 against I.A.No.214/2010. No order was passed by the State Commission on the revision preferred against the interim orders as the same was not pressed. Therefore, the District Forum observed:
Much water has flown after passing of the interim injunction. At Present injunction is non existent. Hence this petition is rejected as not maintainable.
When the matter has been taken up for hearing it was conceded that the Electricity Board has resumed the supply as ordered by the District Forum. However, the complainant asserts that as against the orders for restoration of electricity, the respondents, electricity board collected amounts and than the electricity was restored. The restoration was not done automatically on the orders. When an order has been passed to restore power supply and when it was restored, the question of violation of order and consequent punishment against the electricity officials will not arise. The order of the District Forum was in a way complied. The question whether the said restoration was made only after collecting the amount would be determined in the main complaint at the time of enquiry, provided the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It may be stated herein that the enforcement of interim orders could be made by resorting to Section 25(1) of C.P.Act, it was by attachment. Section 27 of C.P.Act contemplates altogether different circumstances.
In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly rejected the initiation of proceedings against the respondent for violation of the orders. We do not see any merits in the revision.
In the result this revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.05-08-2011