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., Membe
Friday 16th day of April, 2004
C.D.No 137/2003
Uma Maheswara Picture Palace,
Rep. by Prop. M.Rosi Reddy,
S/o. M. Eswar Reddy,
R/o. Valluru (V), Gospadu (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri S.Ummar Javid Ali.
-Vs-
1. The Asst. Divisional Engineer,
A.P.C.P.D.L Ltd.,
Allagadda. . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by his
Counsel Sri D.Srenivasulu.
2. The Supdt.Engineer, Assessment,
A.P.C.P.D.L.Limited,
A.P.State Housing Corporation Building,
Urda Galli, H.No.3-6-184,
4th Floor, Street No.17,
Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 against the opposite party seeking a direction for refund of RS.64, 899/- 50% of the assessed amount paid, RS.22, 000/- paid towards compounding fee, RS.20,000/- towards mental agony, RS.5,000/- as costs and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that on 7.6.2002 at 23.15 hours the Assistant Divisional Engineer DPE-I Kurnool inspected the service connection of the complainant at Uma Maheswari Picture Palace, Yallur Village, Gospadu Mandal. The said Asst. Divisional Engineer suspected pilferage of electric energy by insertion of foreign material, assessed the value of pilferage to RS.3, 88, 398/- and the said offence was compounded to RS.22, 000/-. The complainant denying the assessment filed his explanation and the provisional assessment was revised to RS.1, 67, 693/- without any enquiry. Aggrevived by the said revision the complainant appealed to opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 revised the said assessment to RS.1,26, 163/- and further stated that no further correspondence will be entertained and threatened to disconnect the service connection without notice to realise the said amount.
3. The complainant paid RS.64, 899/- towards half of the assessed amount on 19.6.2002. The said inspection by opposite party No.1 at 23.15 hours is itself against the basic principles of Law. The conduct of opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
4. The complainant in support of its case filed his sworn affidavit besides to the following documents (1) attested Xerox copy of representation dt 17.8.2002 by the complainant to Revenue divisional officer, Nandyal (2) Final assessment order dt 31.8.2002 issued by C.P.D.C of A.P Ltd (3) Orders in Appeal No.1869/2002 dt 30.9.2002 of CPDC of AP Ltd (4) office copy of letter dt 8.8.2002 of MRO Gospadu to RDO, Nandyal and (5) receipt signed by CPDC of AP Ltd dt 19.6.2002 for payment of RS.64, 899/- towards 50% assessed amount. The above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 for its appreciation in this case.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through its standing counsel and filed its written version, the opposite party No.2 was made exparte on 20.10.2003. The opposite party No.1 denies the complaint as not maintainable neither in Law nor on facts. It admits the case of the complainant, and the provisional assessment was revised to RS.1,67,693/- later again a final assessment was made to RS.1,26,163/- in appeal. The said assessment was made in accordance to the terms and conditions of supply and the assessment became final. The criminal case against the complainant was admitted and the complainant paid compounding fee and never questioned it. The method of arising at the assessment cannot be done by this Hon’ble Forum as a special tribunal is constituted to agitate the same and further the prayer of the complainant for refund of 50% assessment amount and refund of compounding fee doesn’t come under the purview of C.P. Act, 1986 and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party No.1 filed its sworn affidavit as evidence and did not filed any documents.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties:-
8. The decision of APSCRC in Rama Krishan Yadav Vs Assistant Divisional Engineer APSEB - Adilabad reported in 1999 ALD (cons) Pg 21 holds no deficiency of service on the part of the electricity board in making demand when it found that electric energy has been pilfered by tampering with the meter, it is not a Consumer dispute within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore cannot be entertained under the Act.
9. The decision of the Hon’ble NCRC (New delhi) In CESE Ltd Vs Smt Sunitha Patil reported in III (1997) CPJ 116 (NC) holds the disconnection of electricity without notice when theft of electricity is found on the raid of complainants premises doesn’t amount to any deficiency of service.
10. From the supra cited decisions what remains clear is that no statutory protection is provided to illegal Acts, the acts done in official capacity in decection and prevention of such illegal act are not complainable as acts of deficiency of service, as the complainant has set to have been detector of pilferage of electric energy by medling with the electricity meter and the assessment and compounding fee were set to have been in accordance with the procedure and the complainant had paid the said assessment voluntarity and willingly to avoid himself from prosecution and not taken any resort to any statutory remedies for his greviences of any, and as this status of Consumer ship comes to his rescue only when he is not guilty of any misconduct, violation of statutory limitation and prescription or legal acts which may effect the general and smooth working of the infrastructure ment for public welfare, and the Forums are nor ment to sit as super organisations to undo every thing that was done legally also merely because of any alibi in conveyance to the complainant, the case of the complainant is not falling within the purview of C P Act to order the relief or refund the claim sought.
11. As to the decision cited by the complainant reported in 2003 (4) ALT pag 269 between Cheedi Rama Rao Vs Transmission Corporation of AP Ltd (A.P Transco) represented by its Chief Managing Director and other it was held that. A special tribunal alone constituted under Sub-Sec.(1) of Sec.49-C had the power and jurisdiction to pass an order awarding compensation in terms of money for theft of energy and the assessment made by opposite party No.2 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. This decision of Hon’ble A.P High Court cannot be relied by the complainant, as it is for the complainant to approach the special tribunal for his grievance and cannot seeks redressal in this Forum, to direct the opposite parties to transfer the complaint of complainant to special tribunal.
12. The other decision filed by the complainant reported in III (2003) CPJ Pg 393 between Punjab State Electricity Board Vs Jasbir singh, it was held that when no inspection report was made on the spot alleging theft of energy, hence the allegation of theft of electric energy is not proved. But in the instant case inspection report was prepared and assessment report was also prepared and on the assessment report the complainant preffered an appeal, hence the complainant cannot relay on this decision.
13. Consequently, in sum up of the above discussions as there is no merit and force in alleged allegations of the complainant and the case of the complainant being no legs to stand worthy of ordering as sought, the complaint is dismissed.
14. In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open Court this the 16th day of April, 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
