Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C. Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 10th day of December, 2004
C.D.No.56/2004
The Secretary-Cum-Correspondent
Sri Azeez rahi,
The Ideal Educational Society,
10/130 Masoom Basha Dargah,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri Syed Shafaqath Hussain
-Vs-
1. The Assistant Engineer (Electricals),
Central Section Division Office,
Railway Station Road, Kurnool.
2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer
Operation / Division Office,
Railway Station Road, Kurnool.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
(Electricals )
Operation/ Division Office,
Railway Station Road, Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties 1 to 3 represented by
his counsel Sri D.Sreenivasulu
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties not to club the electricity bills of the service connections bearing No.s 1323 and 8354 and to issue separate bills to the same connections, to revise bills issued so far and to refund the excess collected, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered and costs of the complaint.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the registered Educational Society running in the name and style of Ideal English High School represented by its Secretary cum correspondent. The said society has taken two separate buildings bearing door No.s 11/110 and 11/109 owned by S. Abdul Azeez and H.A Sajida Begum, Zaheer Ahmed and Shahina Begum respectively, the said buildings are having electric service connection bearing No. s. 8354 and 1323. In the month of March 2003, the opposite parties clubbed the above two service connections relating to two different buildings owned by two different persons. Thereafter the complainant addressed a letter to opposite parties requesting not to club the said two service connections and to revise the bills already issued so far. The opposite parties issued a notice dt 27.5.2004, informing the complainant, that as per the directives of the commission, the multiple connections for the same category and purpose of use in a single premises is prohibited, and therefore requested the complainant to retain only one connection. The complainant submits that the above prohibition is not applicable to his case as two service connections are in separate premises and belongs to different persons, hence, the clubbing in unjust and illegal and arbitrary. Inspite of several requests and legal notice the opposite parties did not issue separate electricity bills for the above mentioned service connections. Hence, resort to Forum seeking redressal for the above said grievance.
3. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 13.5.2004 addressed by complainant to opposite parties (2) reply letter addressed by opposite parties to the complainant dt 27.5.2004 (3) bill dt 1.5.2003, consumption for the month of April 2003 of the service connection No.1323 for Rs.4,721/- (4) bill dt 3.3.2003 of the service connection No.1323 for Rs.2,432/- (5) bill dt 3.3.2003 of the service connection No.83354 for Rs.1029/- (6) bill dt 1.6.2004 of the service connection No.1323 (7) legal notice issued by complainants counsel to opposite parties dt 31.5.2004 and (8) acknowledgement of opposite party for receipt of Ex A.7, besides to his sworn affidavit, in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.8 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and opposite party No.1 filed his written version and contested the case and denied the complainants case as not maintainable either in law or on facts.
5. The written version of opposite parties submits that the complainants society is running a school in one building with two door numbers bearing H.No.11/109 and H.No.11/110 owned by S.Azeed Rahim and Sajida Begum, having two service connections bearing No.s 83354 and 1323 and separate bills were issued, from April, 2003 onwards two meter were clubbed and a single bill was issued and the said bills were paid regularly till 13.4.2004.
6. It further submits that the service connection No.1323 was released 40 years back under category II to the complainant’s building in two floors and the said building was purchased by Abdul Azeez Rafi (correspondent of the Ideal school) and Sajida Begum. In 1992, Abdul Azeez has put forth an application requesting for supply of electricity for domestic purpose for the D.No.11/110 and enclosed a sale deed in proof of his ownership of the building and SC. No. 83354 was sanctioned. In pursuance to the Hon’ble commissions directives in T.O 2003 -04 inspection was done by opposite party and found that supply to Sc.No.83354 was utilized for non domestic purpose i.e running school in the said building in two floors. Therefore, as per the directions of the board, the category of supply to SC 83354 and 1323 was found to be same and in the same premises, hence, both the services were clubbed and single bill is being issued and finally it submits that dispute relating to tariff fixation is not a dispute coming within the ombit of C.P. Act, 1986 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The opposite parties in support of its case filed the following documents Viz (1) Memo No. CGM/Com1/DE (RAC)/ F directive D.No.19/04 dt 1.4.2004 (2) letter dt 17.5.2004 of Assistant Engineer, operation APCPDCL to Sc.No.1323 Ideal School, 11/109, Kurnool and (3) inspection notes of P. Obulesu AE/CS/KN1 dt 17.3.2003, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.3 for its appreciation in this case.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties?:-
9. The Ex A.1 is letter dt 13.5.2004 of the complainant to the opposite parties, referring thereby the clubbing of electricity bills of service No.s 83354 and 1323 of two different building owned by two different persons. It says the house bearing No.s 11/110 is owned by the complainant him self and his wife H.A Sajida Begum bearing SC No.83354 and the other house bearing No.11/109 is owned by Zaheer Ahmed and Shahina Begum. But as against to it the written version of opposite parties in its avernments submits that one building with two door numbers is owned by S. Abdul Azeed Rahim & Sajida Begum with two service connections. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of supra stated contentions of the opposite party and as in Ex A.4 electricity bill dated 3.3.2003 for service connection No. 1323 the name of the owner mentioned as Jamina Bi Rasul and Ex A.5 electricity bill dated 3.3.2003 for service connection 83354 the name of the owner is mentioned as Abdul Azeez Rafi, subsequent to that, the said statement of opposite parties on this aspect no only remaining highly inconsistence, but also there by un-trust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of opposite parties in that regard.
10. The Ex A.2 is the letter of opposite party dt 27.5.2004 addressed to the complainant, stating that the SC No.1323 and 83354 under category II in the house No.11/109 are availed by the complainant. It is further stated that as per the directives of Commission, multiple connections for the same category in a single premises is prohibited and requested to retain only one connection and to surrender the extra connection and no response is received within seven days the opposite parties will terminate the extra connection in exercise of the powers vested within under clause 26.7 of the terms and conditions of supply for violation of the order of the commission and service No.1323 will be treated as single service.
11. The Ex A.3 electricity bill dt 1.5.2003 for SC.No.1323 for RS.4,721/- and the Ex A.6 electricity bill dt 1.6.2004 for SC No.1323 for Rs.48/-
12. The Ex A.7 is the legal notice dt 31.5.2004 of the complainant addressed to the opposite parties, the same grievances such as clubbing of two service connections owned by two different persons. It also says the two service connections bearing No.s 1323 & 83353 are connected to two separate, independent buildings owned by two different persons as such the directives of the commissions is not applicable in this case and requests not to terminate the service connection, inspite of that if done so, the complainant is constrained to challenge the said action in appropriate Forum and also claim for damages against opposite parties. The Ex A.8 envisages the acknowledgment of the Ex A.7 notice by the opposite parties.
13. The Ex B.1 is the memo dt 1.5.2004 of the Chief General Manager (commercial) with reference to instructions and guidelines issued on identification and clubbing of multiple services in single household and commercial establishments. It also says in T.O 2003-04 the Hon’ble Commission has directed to check all the services and remove multiple connections by 31st October, 2003 and submit the same to this office by 15.4.2004.
14. The Ex B.3 is the inspection report of P. Obulesu conducted on 17.3.2003 at 11.30 hours, in the premises of Abdul Azeez Rahi, H.No.11/109 & 11/110, bearing SC.No.83354, non domestic purpose under category II. Further, from the contends of Ex B.3, where in, it is mentioned that service is released for non domestic purpose but during inspection the supply is found being utilizing for domestic purpose i.e school purpose. The SC No.1323 is also existing in the same premises and the supply is utilizing for school purpose. Hence SC No.1323 & 83354 is clubbed as per APERC.
15. From the avernments of complaint, legal notice in Ex A.7, sworn affidavit of complainant and bills in Ex A.4&A5, the complainant’s school is occupied in a building bearing H NO. s 11/110& 11/109 owned by S. Abdul Azeez and Sajida Begum, Zaheer Ahmed and Shahina Begum respectively having two SC No.s 83354 & 1323 from the very material it is remaining clear that the school building is owned by two different persons, having two service connecting. While such is so with the above, the supply from both the connections are being utilized for non-domestic purpose i.e school purpose. Hence, from the above there appears high inconsistency as to the single ownership of the school buildings. Further from the contends of Ex A.4&A.5, where in, the owners are different for the house bearing No.s 11/109 and 11/110. Further, if the owner is one and the same, there is no meaning in issuing two bills for the same building in different names. All the above, said material indicated in uni-tone that opposite parties has wrongly clubbed the two service connections owned by two different persons. Hence there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite parties side towards the complainant right from the day opposite parties clubbed the said two service connections.
16. The opposite parties sides except alleging defaultive and non-cooperative conduct of the complainant in not complying the directives of the commission and filling Ex B.1 to B.3 did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting corroborative material.
17. The other objection of opposite parties is that dispute relating to tariff fixation is not a dispute coming within the ambit of C.P. Act as there is no dispute regarding tariff fixation this objections is rejected.
18. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service of the opposite parties in clubbing the two service connections of two different persons and issuing single bill. Therefore, the complainant is certainly remaining entitled for the reliefs sought in the complainant. The supply released from these two service connections are being utilized by the complainant’s school. Hence the opposite parties have to issue two different bills for two different service connections.
19. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties not to club the two service connections bearing No.s 1323 & 83354, occupied by complainant’s school as owned by two different persons and to issue separate bills to the supra said service connections as per terms and conditions of supply within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated t the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 10th day of December, 2004
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
