This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Kamalakar Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 & 2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of a flour mill, got sanction under small scale industry and to run the same, obtained electricity service connection vide its No.16337 from the opposite parties. The opposite parties allotted III-Phase electricity. Since the allotment, the complainant paid the bills regularly along with ACD charges. The last bill amount of Rs.10,301/- was paid on 26-10-2014. Surprisingly, the opposite parties disconnected the service connection of the flour mill without any notice. Inspite of approaching the authorities, they did not respond to give any information regarding the disconnection, due to which, the complainant suffered a lot at the age of 63 years and lost his earnings due to disconnection. Therefore, issued legal notice on 03-11-2014, even though, there is no response from the opposite parties and as such filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to restore the service connection No.16337 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for deficiency of service.
3. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit and also filed some documents, those were relevant to the case, marked as Exhibits A1 & A2.
Ex.A1:-Bill dt.15-10-2014 and payment receipt for Rs.10,301/-.
Ex.A2:-Office copy of Legal notice dt.03-11-2014 along with postal acknowledgements.
4. On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
5. In the counter the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is having 5 service connections vide No’s. 16337, 59059, 379239, 16080 and 70540, the complainant has dues on said service connections up to the month of September 2014. On requests of complainant, the department had given time for payment of said dues but the complainant failed to pay the due amounts till 20-10-2014 and as such the service connection of the Mill was disconnected in accordance with the electricity supply code regulation. Thereafter, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,226/- on 26-10-2014 for service connection No.16337 and Rs.7,000/- on service connection No.37923 and Rs.7,000/- towards S.C.No.70540 but he did not pay any amount for service connections No’s. 59059 and 16080, the same was mentioned by the opposite parties in bill dt.15-10-2014 under S.C. No.16337. The opposite parties also submitted that the S.C.No.16337 including the other 4 service connections having pending dues of Rs.8,258/-, Rs.38,561/-, Rs.12,900/-, Rs.1,442/- and Rs.14,007/- up to September 2014, therefore, they disconnected the service connection on 20-10-2014. Further submitted that on 18-11-2014 the complainant had paid Rs.15,000/- towards S.C.No.59059, immediately the service connection was restored by the opposite parties and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Along with the counter opposite parties filed photocopy of ledger extracts of 5 service connections, marked under exhibit B1.
7. In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief
as prayed for?
Point:-
8. According to the aforesaid averments and basing on the material on the record, the complainant is having 5 electricity service connections to his house, among which, one service connection was obtained to run the Flour Mill vide service connection No.16337, the complainant alleged that the opposite parties disconnected the service connection of the Flour Mill on 20-10-2014 without any prior notice and as such he lost his earnings and suffered a lot. On the other hand the opposite parties averred that the complainant is having dues on all 5 service connections till the date of disconnection and by following the existing rules, disconnected the service connection of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of them and to disprove the averments of the complainant, the department filed ledger extracts of 5 service connections of the complainant. During the proceedings the complainant was filed a memo by stating that he is ready to pay the arrears on service connection No’s. 16337, 59059, 37923, 16080 and 70540 in 5 monthly equal installments. Therefore, this Forum taking the same into consideration, directed the complainant to pay the arrears on the said service connections in 4 monthly equal installments along with the regular bills starting from January 2015. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.
9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the complainant to pay the arrears on service connections No’s. 16337, 59059, 37923, 16080 and 70540 in 4 monthly equal installments along with the regular bill amounts starting from January 2015. The opposite parties are also directed to receive the said amounts from the complainant. There is no order as to costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected by me and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2015.
FAC President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
