Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/78/2014

U.V.Lakshimiprasuna,Wife of U.V Jagan Mohan Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Superintending Engineer.Operation APSEB - Opp.Party(s)

N.Sreenivasulareddy

25 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

                                                                      Date of Filing     :10-11-2014

                                                                  Date of Disposal: 25-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  25^th day of   SEPTEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                         Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.78/2014

 

U.V. Lakshmi Prasunna

   (Uppuluri Venkata Prasanna Lakshmi),

Wife of U.V. Jagan Mohan Rao,

Hindu, Aged about 50 years,

Occupation: Business,

Residing at 16/1059, Trunk Road,

Nellore-524 001.                                                                        ..… Complainant       

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	Superintending Engineer / Operation, APSEB, Dargamita, Opposite to Rajarajeswari Temple, Nellore.
2.	Divisional Engineer / Operation, APSEB, Dargamitta, Opposite to  Rajarajeswari Temple, Nellore.
3.	Divisional  Engineer / MRT, APSEB, Dargamitta, Opposite to Rajarajeswari Temple, Nellore.
4.	Assistant Divisional Engineer / Operation, APSEB, Dargamitta, A.K.Nagar, Nellore.
5.	Senior Accounts  Officer / Operation, APSEB, Dargamitta, Opposite to  Rajarajeswari Temple, Nellore.
6.	Assistant  Engineer / Operation / Town-1, APSEB, Kotamitta, Nellore city.
7.	Assistant Accounts Officer / ERO, APSEB, Kotamitta, Nellore City.                                                    ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint coming on 22-09-2017 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy and Sri B. Naresh Kumar Reddy, advocates for the complainant and   Sri  K. Padmanabhaiah,   advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

 

 

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

           The complaint filed by the complainant against   the opposite parties 1 to 7 under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties  to pay a sum ofRs.51,959/-  to the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint  with costs.

              2.     The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows that:-  Complainant  submits that she is carrying on  her business in operating Xerox machine under the trade name and style M/s.Sree Prasunna  Xerox  center in the shop situated at Trunk Road, Nellore City.  Complainant is the LT-commercial, customer with service No.3311409018411  with the opposite parties, for eakingout the  livelihood of the  complainant.

              Complainant submits that till the end of December, 2009, the average monthly consumption of electricity for the said service was 269 units.  Thereafter in the 1^st week of April, 2010, the opposite parties have changed the existing  a meter and installed new meter with three phases.  After installation of new meter, the electricity consumption for the months of April and May, 2010  and June was 679, 1037 and 1043 units respectively.  Thereafter   from July, 2010  to December, 2010, the average monthly electricity consumption was 718.33 units; from January, 2011 to December, 2011 the average monthly electricity consumption was 558.75 units; from January, 2012 to August, 2012 the average monthly electricity consumption was 460.63 units.

               Complainant  further submits that  the opposite parties  without  any requisition  from the complainant have  changed the meter in the month of September, 2012 and  installed new meter.  Thereafter the average monthly electricity consumption from September, 2012 to December, 2012 was  475 units; the average  monthly electricity consumption from January, 2013 to December, 2013 was 439.75 units.

                Complainant further submits that in the month of May, 2014, she suspected that excess electricity bills were showing since installation of new meters in the months of  April, 2010  and September, 2012.  The complainant informed  the same to the 6^th opposite party about excess  billing, then the 6^th opposite party along with the line inspector inspected the meter and informed that the meter was running  fast and consequently  excess billing was  showing.  Thereafter the complainant made a representation to the 2^nd opposite party on 16-05-2014 mentioning that her shop consumes 400 units per month  on an average and requested the 2^nd opposite party to change the meter and adjust the excess amount collected in future bills.

Thereafter  the 2^nd opposite party  changed the meter and installed the new meter on 31-05-2014.  Opposite parties have not issued  any receipt  to the complainant when they have taken back the old meter. On the same day, the  6^th opposite party  took reading   of the meter  and issued the bill as per the old meter.  When the complainant questioned the same, the 6^th opposite party informed that  the old meter was functioning properly.   Further in the month of March and April, 2014, there was power cuts for 6 hours daily.

 Then the complainant made representation  to the 1^st opposite party on                   14-08-2014  referring the above  mentioned facts and requested to check the meter and subsequently on  17-09-2014, the  said meter was tested by 3^rd opposite party and stated that there was no error in the meter.  Then complainant  questioned the 3^rd opposite party the reason for  excess billing, he informed that  as earthing and capacitor were not installed when new meters  were installed in the year 2010, 2012 and 2014, consequently excess reading of the meter was showing.

           Complainant further submits that it is the duty of the opposite parties to inform the complainant that capacitors have to be installed to the new meter.  If the opposite parties have informed   the same to the complainant at the time of installing  the new meters, she would have installed   capacitors to the new meter. Thus there is an omission on the part of  the opposite parties in installing the new meter without capacitor which is sheer negligence on their part.

           Thereafter the complainant made representation to the 1^st opposite party on 22-09-2014 referring the facts, but  there was no response from 1^st opposite party.  Thus complainant is constrained to file this complaint. Complainant further submits that  she is eakingout her livelihood  by operating xerox machine and she has no other source of income.  Till now opposite parties have collected excess  amount of Rs.51,959/- from the complainant and submits to allow the complaint with costs.           

3.     The opposite party No.6 filed counter / written version  and the opposite parties 1 to5 and 7filed memo adopting the  written version filed on behalf of the opposite party No.6 with the following averments that:-

           The existing electro-mechanical meter was replaced with the high accuracy electronic meter as per the policy decision taken from time to time by the management. The new meter installed is working satisfactorily and  there is no excess consumption recorded.  Further the consumer has not complaint during the above period  from 04/10 to 12/11 regarding of excess consumption recording in the  meter.  The meter was replaced in the month of 08/12, the existing KWH meter is replaced with KVAH due to the revised tariff schedule issued by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulation  Commission for the financial year 2012-13.  As per the tariff schedule that the services having 10 KW  load and above I.T. Trivector meter should be  provided and energy charges shall be filled on KVAH para  meter.

            Based on the representation given by the consumer to the Divisional Engineer / Operation / Nellore, the consumer is  advised to register the complaint at call center and to pay the necessary testing charges accordingly.  The consumer has registered the complaint on 19-05-2014 at Customer Service Center vide complaint No.CRO-151, dated 19-05-2014 regarding excess billing. The Additional Assistant Engineer / Operation / Town Hall Section / Nellore has changed the meter on                  31-05-2014.  Based on the complaint received from  Customer Service Center  and removed  the complaint meter and send the same to the Meter Testing Laboratory for  testing.  The meter was tested on 25-06-2014  by the Assistant Engineer / I.T.  meters and found that the performance of the meter is satisfactory.    As the meter performance is satisfactory, hence the revision of bill does not arise.

            The opposite party  further submitted that based on the representation made by the consumer to the Superintending  Engineer / Operation / Nellore on 14-08-2014 and requested to Re-check  the meter once again, the meter was Re-tested on 17-09-2014 by the Divisional Engineer / Meter Relay Transformer NLR at MRT lab in the presence of consumer representative.  On testing the meter, it is found there is no error in the meter.  This was acknowledged  by  the person who is endorsed by the consumer.  The reasons for  excess consumption recorded in the  meter is not related to the department.

           The department is not responsible for installation of  capacitors at consumer premises  and that is look after by the consumer.  The fact  was already  informed  to the consumers representative  who is attending at the time of testing the meter.  On completion of the testing, the correctness of the meter position was acknowledge  by the person who is endorsed  by the consumer.  The department has not  collected any extra amount  towards C.C. charges.  Hence the question of compensation does not arise.

           The opposite party further submitted  that the  complainant is utilizing supply  for the purpose of his business i.e., for running xerox  shop.  There is no deficiency of service or negligence   on the part of these opposite parties in rendering  service.  The complainant has to pay  the consumption charges as per  bill issued to him and submits for the dismissal of the complaint against the opposite parties with costs.

            4.    On behalf of  the complainant, the affidavit of the complainant is received as the evidence of P.W.1  and  Exs.A1 to A10 were marked.

            5.      On behalf of the opposite parties, the chief  affidavit of R.W.1 (R6)  was received and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

             6.     On behalf of  both parties, written arguments filed.

             7.     Perused the written arguments  filed on behalf of both parties.

             8.     Heard the learned  counsels for the both parties.

             9.     Now the points for consideration are:

1.   Whether the  complaint filed by the complainant under Section-12 of  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties  1 to 6 alleging deficiency of service is maintainable?
2. To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

          10. POINT No.1:The learned counsel for the complainant submits by filing written arguments  that the complainant purchased  xerox machine  and running the same  for  her livelihood and as there are defects in the meter reading of power consumption and inspite of several  requests as the opposite parties  1 to 7 failed to provide services to the complainant by rectifying the meter  and consumption, hence the complainant filed this complaint  against the opposite parties 1 to 7 and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 7 submit that the complainant purchased the xerox machine  for  commercial purpose and hence as the complainant purchased  Xerox machine for commercial, the complainant is not a Consumer  and hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  and submits for the  dismissal of the complaint  against the opposite parties 1 to 7 with costs.

             In view  of the  arguments submitted by the learned counsels for the both parties and as seen from the averments of the complaint at para 3 it reads as follows:

 

 “The brief averments of the  complaint are as follows that:-  Complainant  submits that she is carrying on  her business in operating Xerox machine under the trade name and style M/s.Sree Prasunna  Xerox  center in the shop bearing door No.16/1059, situated at Trunk Road, Nellore City.  Complainant is the LT-commercial, customer with service No.3311409018411  with the opposite parties, for eakingout the  livelihood of the  complainant.”

 

Para 11 of the  complaint  reads as follows:

 “Complainant further submits  that she is eaking out her livelihood by operating xerox machine and she has no other source of  income”.

 

The  chief affidavit of P.W.1 at para-2 reads as follows that:

“I submit  that I am  carrying on my business in operating xerox machine  under the trade name and style M/s.Sree Prasuna Xerox Center in the shop bearing door No.16/1059, situated at Trunk Road, Nellore city.  I am the LT-commercial customer with service No.3311409018411 with the opposite parties.”

 

The complainant purchased the Xerox machine  for taking the copies  for commercial purpose when the complainant has  purchased the xerox machine for commercial purpose, the complainant  is not a Consumer  and thus there is no deficiency of service.

In   National Dairy Research Institute  (Deemed University) Vs.  Sheldon Manufacturing  Inc., reported in II (2013)  CPJ 275.

 

             Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held as follows:

             “Requisite machine was purchased for commercial purpose only. Purchase by an  institute could not  come   within  term “Service” availed exclusively for purpose of earning its livelihood by means  of self-employment.  Petitioner was not  Consumer”

 

In   Mohamad Hasaab Ahmad Vs. Maharashtra Electricity Board and others  reported in 2010 CTJ 886 (NC).

              Wherein the  Hon’ble  National Commission held as follows:

               “A person availing electricity  services for his stone-crusher for a commercial purpose designed to earn profit  is not a Consumer.”

 

              By  relying upon the  above decisions, we are of the opinion that as admittedly the complainant  has purchased the xerox  machine  for commercial purpose and as the  said transaction  is commercial one, we are of the opinion that  there is no deficiency of service between the  complainant  and the opposite parties.

 

              By relying upon the above decisions and the facts of the case, we are of the  opinion that as there is commercial activity hence there is no deficiency of service  by the opposite parties 1 to 7 towards complainant.  Hence  we are of the opinion that  the  complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 7 is not  maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.

 

             In view of the above said discussion, we answered this point against  the complainant and in favour of the opposite parties 1 to 7. 

 

            11. POINT No.2:In view of our answering on points 1 and 2 against  the complainant  and in favour of the opposite parties 1 to 7.  We are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 7 is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.

              In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances, no costs.

 

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the 25^th day of  SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

           Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-

      MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

22-07-2015

Smt. U.V. Lakshmi Prasuna, W/o.U.V.Jagan Mohan Rao,  Self Employee, Nellore-524 001 (Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

11-03-2015

L.V. Nagendra Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Working as A.E. in APSPDCL, Nellore (Chief affidavit filed)

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	16-05-2014	Photostat copy of  letter from opposite party No.2 to the complainant.
Ex.A2  -	14-08-2014	Letter from opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
Ex.A3  -	22-09-2014	Photostat copy of letter from opposite party No.1  to the complainant.
Ex.A4  -	-	Photostat copy of account copy for the year 2010 in transCd No.303311130077.
Ex.A5  -	-	Photostat copy of account copy for the year 2011 transCd No.303311130077.
Ex.A6  -	-	Photostat copy of account copy for the year 2012 transCd No.303311130077.
Ex.A7  -	-	Photostat copy of account copy for the year 2013 transCd No.303311130077.
Ex.A8  -	-	Photostat copy of account copy for the year 2014 transCd No.303311130077.
Ex.A9  -	-	Photostat copies of Meter Changed Reading Particulars yearly average.
Ex.A10  -	-	Certificate dated 06-07-2015 from  a Grade  Licensed  Electrical, A.P.Government Approved Contractor and Photostat copy of Schedule of retail tariff rates and terms and conditions in respect of the four discoms for fy.2002-2003.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	-	Photostat copies of  Meter Change Slip dated 31-05-2014  and  payment bill dated 19-05-2014 for Rs.300/-.
Ex.B2  -	-	Photostat copies of Proforma for Lodging Complaints dated 19-05-2014, letter from  opposite party No.2 to the complainant dated 16-05-2014 and in two pages six electricity bills (Photostat copies).
Ex.B3  -	-	Photostat copy of  calculations  on 25-06-2014 and                17-09-2014 and Meter particulars.
Ex.B4  -	-	Photostat copy of  Retail supply Tariff Schedule for FY 2012-13, dated 30th March, 2012.

 

 

                                                                                                             Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri N. Sreenivasulu Reddy and Sri B. Naresh Kumar Reddy,  Advocates,           16-4-214, Gandhi Nagar, Near Sunday Market, Nellore-1 (A.P.)
2.	Sri K. Padmanabhaiah, Advocate,  Sreerama Nilayam, 1st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

Date when free copy was issued: