Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/82/2014

Gani Saheb - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Superintendent Engineer A.P.S.P.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

M.Kotareddy

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                             Date of filing       :  26-11-2014

                                                             Date of disposal  :   30-11-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 30th day of NOVEMBER, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

         

                                 C.C.No.82/2014

Sk.Gani Saheb,

S/o.Kalesha, aged 70 years,

R/o.Door No.16/4/301,

Velagachettusangam,

Haranathapuram Circle,

Nellore.       .                                                                     …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1. Superintendent Engineer,

APSPDCL, Vidhyuth Bhavan,

Vedayapalem, Nellore.

 

2. DEE/O (divisional electrical engineer/operations)

APSPDCL, VENGALARAO NAGAR,

KAVALI TOWN AND MANDAL,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

 

3.  ADE/O (additional divisional engineer/operations)                                                                 

NORTH RAJUPALEM SECTION,

KODAVALURU MANDAL,

SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.                                  …          Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on 12-11-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Kota Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

    This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them to reduce the extra billed amount for the bill dt.    19-09-2014 and also restrained them from disconnecting the power supply to H.Sc.No.3251513000979 till disposal of this consumer dispute on merits otherwise he will be put to irreparable loss and injury; there is a deficiency in service against the said opposite parties 1 to 3 and the Hon’ble Consumer  Forum may be pleased to pass an appropriate relief or reliefs as it may deemed it fit and proper in the interests of justice.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I (a)    It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist and having an extent of land ac.2-00 in Iskapalli village, Kavali mandal, SPSR Nellore District.  He had been using of that said land for prawn culture and for that purpose he had obtained current connection bearing S.C.No.3251513000979 from the opposite parties – electricity department, APSPDCL, ADE/o (Additional divisional engineer/operation), North Rajupalem section, Gandavaram, Kodavaluru mandal, SPSR Nellore District 10 years back.

(b)  It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-4 of his complaint that he had been regularly paying current bills for the said connection.  While so, the usual current consumption of the said meter varies from 500 units to 2200 units from January, 2014 to August, 2014.  But, the 3^rd opposite party had sent through their lineman current bill to him for the months of August, 2014 to September, 2014 bill dated 19-09-2014 bill no.407 wherein consumption of the units of the complainant were shown as  15611 and the energy charges were shown as Rs.97,706/- . He had  utterly surprised after seeing the current bill as it was very abnormal and used consumption of units are below 2200 units.  The complainant had installed two motors with a capacity of 3HP and 2HP and 6 aerators are working 4 hours per a day and for these electrical devises as per norms usual current consumption should not cross 3500 units per month.  Immediately, after seeing extraordinary consumption bill, the complainant gave a report to the 3^rd opposite party on 24-09-2014 about the bill jumping and malfunctioning of the electrical meter.  Then the 3^rd opposite party, after seeing the said complaint from him, inspected the said meter and found that it was not working properly and the units shown in the bill dated 19-09-2014 caused due to bill jumping and which was causing due to malfunctioning of the said meter and the 3^rd respondent had changed the malfunctioning of the meter and installed new meter on       27-10-2014.  Thereafter, for the 19-10-2014 current bill the said meter was shown as the consumption of units 3195 according to the consumption of electrical devises of the complainant.  Thereafter, he gave another report dated 15-11-2014 to 3^rd respondent requesting him to change the extra units’ bill as he did not consume the extra units as shown in the bill dated 19-09-2014.  But the 3^rd opposite party did not agree to change the extra bill amount and also did not agree their default in rendering service to the complainant.  There is a default and deficiency in service from APSPDCL. The 3^rd opposite party demanded him to pay the entire bill 19-09-2014 even though there was no necessity to pay the bill.  Then, the complainant had also met 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and requested them to change the extra bill amount but they did not respond properly and gave evasive replies.  Moreover, all the opposite parties 1 to 3 demanded him to pay the entire bill amount dated 19-09-2014 and otherwise they should cut his meter connection.  He was a regular payer of the current bills and he was not a defaulter so far.   So, he did not pay extra bill amount which did not consume units at all.

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant in para-5 of his complaint that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are negligent in rendering service to him.  He has suffered a lot of agony due to the acts of the said opposite parties.  Hence the complaint. 

II.  DEFENCE:

(1)    The 3^rd opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dt.02-01-2015 and denying the allegations of the complainant in the complaint.  An adoption of counter of 3^rd opposite party by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and submitted a memo on 02-01-2015.   Those allegations are false and the complaint is not maintainable either in law on facts. 

(2)    It is also further submitted by the 3^rd opposite party in para-3 of its counter/written version that actually the complainant is having agricultural connection for his prawn culture.  He had been utilizing the power supply for the purpose of Aqua culture under category-III for an extent of 2.5. acres.  According to the procedure, the current bills are being issued towards consumption charges as per the readings available in the meter.  They were issued for utilization of consumption and charges levied in the form of current bills to the complainant.  It was all depends upon utilizing the supply of electricity according to the season.  It may be heavy consumption by the consumer when there was no power cut and its supply for 24 hours. Perhaps when there was a power cut, automatically consumption would be low.  There were also chances of increase of consumption when aqua water was pumped for neighbouring funds.  Hence, usually the department   was billing according to consumer charges as per the readings in the meter. 

(3)    It is also further submitted by the 3^rd opposite party in para-4 of its written version/counter that at the request of the complainant/consumer, his said electricity meter was sent to the MRP lab after replacing the new meter.  While testing the said meter, it was found that there was no defect in the meter and functioning normally.  It was done in the presence of the complainant’s representative namely Sk.Nasool and N.Koteswara Rao.  The Asst.Engineer, operations, Alluru, informed the said result to the complainant through letter dtd.22-11-2014.  There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.   The said disputed bill was issued to the complainant as per the consumption only and the comparing the bills with the other bills of the complainant may not be just and proper in view of the supply of electricity by the opposite parties.  Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

III. The complainant had filed an affidavit along with his complaint on            26-11-2014 and again he had also filed an affidavit on 04-08-2015 by reiterating the facts of the case.  Prior to this affidavit an another affidavit of the complainant was filed on 26-02-2015.  Basing on his affidavit dt.            04-08-2015 the documents Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on 24-08-2015.  There is affidavit filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 02-01-2015.  The written arguments of the complainant filed on 24-08-2015 in support of his case.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

 

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2:

 

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint and documents filed herein.    It is nothing but repetition of them once again in his complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

 

        The learned counsel for the complainant Sri M.Kota Reddy has vehemently argued that to prove the case of the complainant he had filed 11 in number electricity bills which are marked as Exs.A1 and A2 on            24-08-2015, including the disputed bill amount of Rs.97,706/- for the month  of September, 2014.  He has further contended that actually the usual current consumption of the said meter varies from 500 units to 2200 units from January, 2014 to August, 2014 but the 3^rd opposite party had sent through their lineman the said disputed bill to the complainant and the current bill no.407 dt.19-09-2014 and the units are shown as 15,611 and energy charges as Rs.97,706/-.  He has further argued that it is very abnormal and the complainant gave a report to 3^rd opposite party on         24-09-2014 about the bill jumping.  Thereafter, 3^rd opposite party has inspected the said meter and changed it and installed a new meter on       27-10-2014.    The said learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the opposite parties 1 to 3 had demanded the complainant to pay the entire amount of the disputed electricity bill dt.19-09-2014.  Thereafter, on 10-12-2014, the opposite parties came to the field of the complainant and disconnected the power supply to the said meter.  In order to save 50 days grown up prawns, the complainant paid the disputed bill of Rs.1,17,823/- on 10-12-2014 and then only the opposite parties reconnected the power supply to the said meter H.Sc.No.3251513000979.  The original paid receipt is filed along with the petition in I.A.No.29/2015 on the file of this Hon’ble Forum.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has argued that he is entitled to get refund of the paid bill jumping amount of Rs.1,26,810/-.  He has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint with costs.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

 

  On the other hand, the learned Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 has also vehemently argued that the complainant is utilizing power supply for the purpose of prawn culture and in arrears of Rs.1,26,810/- towards his consumption of electricity charges upto 11/2014.  After payment of the said amount to electricity department, the complainant’s electricity service was restored.  Then, after restoration of service, the complainant had filed a petition for refund of the said amount which is not just and proper.  He has further argued that there are also chances of increase of consumption of electricity charges when aqua water was pumped for neighbouring ponds.  The electricity department is billing the consumption charges according to the readings available in the said meter.  At the request of the consumer/complainant, the said meter was sent to the MRT Lab after replacing the new meter and testing, it was found that there is no defect in the said meter and functioning normally.  The test in the MRT lab was done in the presence of complainant’s representatives namely Mr.Sk.Nasoor and Mr.N.Koteswara Rao. The Asst.Engineer, operations, Allure informed the said result in testing the said meter in MRT lab to the complainant through the letter dt.22-11-2014.  Finally, the said learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 has advanced his oral arguments by saying that there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  He has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

 

 

Forum’s Findings and observations

 

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. Oral arguments are advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.  The affidavits are filed by the complainant dt.26-11-2014; 26-2-2015 and 4-8-2015, treated as evidence of his allegations against the opposite parties 1 to 3.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are filed written version/counter .  The opposite parties 1 to 3 have also filed affidavit on 02-1-2015.

    One who seeks equity before the Forum, must come to it with clean hands.  The complainant must prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.  He should not travel beyond the pleadings of the case.  He had filed his affidavits with different prayer apart from his complaint. The I.A.No.177/2014; and I.A.No.29/2015 are before the Forum with a prayer which sought for refund of the paid the disputed bill amount of Rs.1,26,810/- to the complainant by the opposite parties.  Admittedly, the prayer in the complaint and affidavits filed by the complainant are different in nature.  There should be an amendment of the complaint to that effect. There is no such prayer in the said complaint. Moreover, we have not find that the discussion about above I.A.’s filed by him in nowhere mentioned in his written arguments which was filed on               24-08-2015.  The complainant had already paid the electricity bills and then only the opposite parties had restored power supply to him. The complaint itself is infructuous.  The reliefs which are sought for in the complaint of the complainant and the purpose for filing in the complaint, is served.  The question of ordering restoration of power by the opposite parties by the Forum does not arise in view of the prayer mentioned in the above said Interlocutory applications filed by the complainant.  It is altogether a different prayer in the affidavits as compared with the prayer in the complaint sought for.  How can be considered two prayers without amending the complaint by the complainant?   

 

      Each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case.  The correspondence of the letters between the complainant and the opposite parties are not filed before us to verify them by the complainant, for the reasons best known to him.  The consumption of electricity and its charges will be levied in the form of bills from time to time by the opposite parties, depends upon the units that are noted therein.  The complainant has not proved his case.  There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties towards complainant.  There are no merits in the complaint. The complaint is miserably failed in his attempt to convince us.  There are so many inconsistent allegations against the opposite parties with figures by the complainant.  The complainant has to discharge the initial burden of proof of the allegations against the opposite parties and that has not been done by him for the reasons best known to him.  We are convinced with the arguments of the said learned counsel for the opposite parties. We are of the opinion that it is a fit case for dismissal.  These two points are in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant, accordingly.

 

POINT NO.3:   In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of November, 2015.    

 

              Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-                                                                      

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

04-08-2015

:

Sk.Gani Saheb S/o.late Kalesha, aged 70 years, r/o.door No.16/4/301, Velagachettusangam, Harnathapuram Circle, Nellore.

 

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

02-01-2015

:

K.Sreenivasulu, S/o.Chinnaiah, aged about 44 years, working as Assistant Divisional Engineer at North Rajupalem.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	-	:	Original current bills for the months January 2014 to November, 2014 (11 in number).
Ex.A2	15-11-2014	:	Photostat copy of the report of complainant to opposite party No.3

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

• NIL -

           Id/-                                                                                                   PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri M.Kotareddy, Advocate, Santhi Nagar, Nellore.
2. Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate,  “Sreeeama Nilayam”, 1^st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: