BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.462/2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.01/2018 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, NALGONDA Between:

1. Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, TSSPDCL, Nalgonda.

2. Divisional Engineer/Operation, TSSPDCL, Huzurnager Village and Mandal, Suryapet District.

3. Asst. Engineer/Operation, TSSPDCL, Chilkur Village and Mandal, Suryapet District.

….Appellants/Opposite Parties And Mr. Pilltla Madhu @ Malsoor, S/o. Saidulu, Aged about: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Huzurnagar Village and Mandal, Suryapet District.

…Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : Mr. P. Gnaneshwar Rao Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : V. Aparna & Associates QUORUM: HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE Dr.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ORDER: (PER SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed by the Opposite Parties U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2020 in CC No.01/2018 by the District Consumer Forum, Nalgonda, where under the complaint was allowed directing the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 to refund Rs.70,868/- with interest @9% p.a., from 05.01.2018 along with cost of Rs.2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The brief averments of the complaint in CC NO.01/2018 are that the Complainant who is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of AC.0-23 guntas in Sy. No.976/2 situated at Seetharamapuram Village of Chilkur Mandal in Suryapet District intended to establish poultry form in the name and style of M/s. Madhu Sai Poultry Farm and obtained all necessary permissions and then applied to the Opposite Party No.3 for the grant of 16 KV transformer, which was forwarded to Opposite Party No.1 for approval and it was granted vide letter No.SE/OP/NLG/COMML/F/D No.1009/12, dated 30.06.2012 with a direction to deposit Rs.70,868/- towards installation charges; that accordingly the said amount was paid by way of Demand Draft dated 27.02.2013 to the Opposite Party No.2; that Complainant came to know on 31.10.2016, the Government is not permitting 16 KV transformers and so, on the same day submitted an application with Opposite Party No.3 to grant 25 KVA transformer instated of 16 KVA and expressed willingness to pay the balance amount; that several times approached the Opposite Parties for the 25 KVA transformer, but the matter was dodged on one pretext or the other; that on 30.10.2017 a legal notice was issued, but it was not considered and no reply was also given. Their actions amounts to deficiency of service; hence, the complaint.

3. Written version of Opposite Party:- The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.3 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the Complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted; that the complainant is not a potential user of the transformer and there is no deficiency of service as defined U/s.2 (1)(o) of CP Act, 1986, and 2 (1)(g) respectively; that having accepted the application of 16 KVA transformer of the Complainant, permission was accorded vide letter dated 30.06.2012 with a demand to comply with the conditions mentioned therein; that nearly after one year the Complainant deposited Rs.70,868/- by way of Demand Draft on 21.08.2013 with Opposite Parties, however, not complied with the conditions by appointing licensed contractor at his end and by purchasing required material, thereby he has to blame himself for his inaction; that due to non-compliance of the conditions the Opposite Parties failed to proceed further; that there is no cause of action to the complaint. They have also filed additional counter stating that the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the amended complaint. With this requested to dismiss the