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 21 day of May, 2004
C.D.No.31/2003
Thaliapalle Veeraiah,
S/o. Venkata Subbaiah,
R/o. D.No. 18-2,
Ramakrishna Paramahamsa Street,
Nandyal, Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri D.M.Ramachandra
Reddy.
-Vs-
1.The Superintending Engineer,
A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Opp. R.T.C. Bustand,
Kurnool.
2.The Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Operation, APCPDCL, Nandyal. . . . Opposite party No.1 &2 represented
By his counsel Sri D.Srinivasulu.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer dispute of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to set aside the back billing of RS.32, 853/- demanded by the opposite party, to pay back RS.16, 427/- with 12% interest per annum collected towards 50% of back billing and to restrain the opposite party from collecting the remaining balance of RS.16,427/-, RS.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint and any other reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is lessee of a Rice mill taken from Kurnool District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited for past 12 years and running the said mill for qeaking his lively hood.
3. The said Rice mill is situated atoutskirts of Nandyal and working only for few hours during paddy seasons i.e November and December. The said Rice mill was provided service connection No ISC 16549. On22.2.2000 the complainant informed the opposite party No.2 that the meter was running slow from 21.2.2000 and in turn A.D.E/D.P.E II Kurnool visited on 23.2.2000 and found meter disk struck up and assessed loss to 37,360/- as back billing and later reduced to RS.32, 853/-, the said back billing was calculated for three months i.e from December 1999 to 23.2.2000 without any basis and the old meter was replaced by new meter. Thereafter the complainant paid half of the assessed back billing amount i.e RS.16, 427/- and preferred an appeal before opposite party No.1 who inturn confirmed the orders of opposite party No.2 and directed to pay the remaining balance amount of RS.16,427/-. Hence the said conduct of opposite parties in demanding back billing amount is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
4. In substantiation of his case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) notice dated 1.4.2000 issued by A.D.E operation, Nandyal to the complainant (2) served xerox copy of the proceedings dt 24.5.2000 issued by opposite party (3) served xerox copy of the proceedings dt 22.5.2001 issued by opposite party No.1 (4) receipt dt 19.3.2001 issued by Assistant Accounts Officer of opposite party No.2 for payment of RS.16, 427/- (5) letter dt 20.5.2003 addressed by Business Manager, the Kurnool District, Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kurnool to complainant and (6) Deed of lease executed by KDCC Marketing Society and the complainant dt 23.3.1990, and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.6 for its appreciation in this case besides to his sworn-affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through its standing counsel and filed its written version (objection statement) denying the complaint averments besides questioning its maintainability. It admits the complainant was issued a notice dt 1.4.2000 by A.D.E. Nandyal assessing the back billing at 37,360/- on the basis of ADE/DPE/II inspection report dt 23.2.2000 for three months period and when the complainant offered explanation, the explanation was accepted and the amount of back billing was reduced from RS.37, 360/- to 32,853/-. The appeal filed by the complainant was also disposed off on considering the merits of the complainant case. Later the complainant paid half of the demanded amount. The said back billing amount was arrived as per the procedure laid in the terms and conditions of supply and the complainant never raised any objection at the time of disposal of appeal by the opposite party No.1. As the complainant preferred appeal before the Superintending Engineer, the Orders of Superintending Engineer have become final. Hence there remains no deficiency of service on part of opposite party.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following document i.e inspection notes dt 23.2.2001 besides to its sworn affidavit in re-iteration of his written version as evidence.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to whether the complainant has proved his case alleging deficiency of service on part of the opposite party:-
8. The complainant lessee of Rice mill and having a service connection bearing No.16549 under category III is provided to the mill by the opposite party. On 23.2.2000 the A.D.E/D.P.E.II Kurnool inspected the mill of the complainant and at that time it was noticed that the meter was not recording correct consumption of units and replaced the old meter with new one. According to the opposite party the slow metering of units Consumption was due to struck up in the meter and basing on such defect in the meter, inspection notes was prepared by I.S. Shetty, ADE/DEP II Kurnool vide Ex B1, the opposite party prepared a demand notice dt 1.4.2000 vide Ex A.1. A bare perusal of Ex A.1 along with details of assessment goes to show that the said demand notice is prepared basing on Ex B.1 inspection notes, it clearly states , that the meter was not functioning correctly and recording less energy consumption because of meter struck up, was found, when all loads are on, and also copper sulphate was formed at all three potential joints and hence the said service connection was recommended for back billing. The said back billing was assessed as per clause 22, 3, 33 of terms and conditions of supply, and the details of assessment are indicated in the annexure enclosed to the demand notice, and the assessment was made to RS.37, 360/-. The annexure attached to the demand notice show the calculation method of assessing the nature of cases for back billing. Thus there appears no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant for issuing Ex A.1.
9. The complainant except alleging the illegal demand notice dt 1.4.2000 issued by the opposite party and filling Ex A.1 to A.6 did not rebut the contents of Ex A.1 and B.1 by placing any cogent relevance rebutting material nor substantiated its bonafides by placing any accepting corroborative material. It the absence of any cogent substance to support the complainant case and in the Ex A.1 and B.1 it is clear that back billing was recommended as meter was found struck up.
10. Hence in the circumstances discussed above as there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party in issuing Ex A.1 demand notice, the said Ex A.1 is prepared based on Ex B.1 inspection notes and the reasons and method of calculation for arriving to the said amount in the demand notice are mentioned in annexure of Ex A.1. Thus there appears any deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is no entitled to any reliefs and the complaint is dismissed
11.Therefore the complaint is dismissed, for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open
Court this the 24th day of May, 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
