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
Wednesday the 24th day of November, 2004
C.D.No.18/2004
Gattu Nagabhushana Rao, S/o Late Gattu Mallaiah Setty,
Door No.21/41, S.K.D. Colony, III Road, Adoni.
. . . Complainants represented by their counsel
Sri Gujarati Naga Raju and J.P.Basava Raju.
-Vs-
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Alur Road, Adoni.
2.The Superintending Engineer, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,
Bellary Road, A.P.S.A.P. Camp, Opp.APSRTC Bus Stand, Kurnool.
3.The Divisional Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Alur Road, Adoni.
. . . Opposite parties 1 to3 represented by their counsel
Sri. D.Srinivasulu.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under sections 10 and 12 of the C.P. Act seeking an award on the opposite parties for declaring the bills dated 01-01-2003 and 01-02-2003 as erroneous and unsustainable, fixing the bill on average of the last preceding 6 months, order for refunding of the balance after its adjustment from paid and to order for replacement of the defective meter and payment to him Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,000/- s compensation and costs respectively.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the opposite parties are supplying electric energy since last several years to the cotton pressing factory of the complainant vide Industrial service connection No.10956 established as small scale Industry under the self-employment scheme for his lively hood and the complainant was paying he consumption bills ranging from Rs.2,650/- to Rs.6,233/- regularly. While such is so for the month January, 2003 a bill of consumption for Rs.11,425/- was issued and the complainant paid it under protest suspecting the defect in the meter complaining for the inspection of the meter and to rectify the defects if any therein paying Rs.500/- charges for the needful for the month of February, 2003 consumption. The opposite parties issued a demand bill for Rs.18,9141/- and disconnected the supply of electric energy to the complainants factory on default of the payment of the said demand. The complainant is waiting for sufficiently long time for the needful from the opposite parties side, requested on 16-08-2003 the opposite parties to issue revise bill on average of the last preceding one year consumption rectifying the defects in the mater and for ordering the restoration of the electric supply and issued a legal notice dated 09-02-2004 for the same. As the opposite parties did not respond to any of them in-spite of the directions from the opposite party No.2 for the rectification of the defect in the mater and the restoration of the energy on the payment of the consumption bill of February, 2003. The disconnection of electric energy supply to the factory of the complainant being without any justifiable excuse as amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant constrained the later to resort to Forum for the redressal under Consume Protection Act.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 contested the matter filing written version denying of any deficiency of service on its part to the complainant. The opposite parties 2 and 3 remained exparte to their proceedings by their absence.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.1 besides questioning the maintainability of the complainants case requiring the strict proof of the complainant averments denied the truth of the deficiency of service and the bonafidies in the alleged cause of action. It denies the alleged self employment of the complainant and the alleged minimum and maximum consumption and the payment of the demand bill of the 1/2003 under any protest. It alleges the testing of the complainant meter on 11-03-2003 by the A.D.E/meter, Kurnool in the presence of the complainant and its finding without any defect and the acknowledgement of the said fact by the complainant and thereby denies the bonafidies in the complaint averments. As the disconnection of the supply of energy being on default of the payment of the bills payable in February, 2003 and the subsequent minimum bills were also not paid by the complainant denies any deficiency of service in supply of the electricity to the complainant’s factory and any of its responsibility for any loss occurred to the complainant.
5. In substantiation of the complaint averments while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and from the opposite party side relied upon the documentary record in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 besides its sworn affidavit and its replies to the interrogatories of the complainant in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case and its cause of action of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards him as to entitle him to the reliefs sought.
7.The Ex.A1is the un-attested Xerox copy of the certificate of the registration the original of which were said to have been issued by the Department of Industries in favour of Gattu Mallaiah and Sons for a Small Scale industrial Unit at Bhasapuram Road at Adoni for the cotton bales pressing bearing registered No.01122552/PM.7/SSI/Rural/85 dated 16-07-1985. Even though it does not envisage the name of the said son of Gattu Malliah, but in the correspondence in Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 and entries in Ex.B1 envisages the concern of the complainant as corresponding for the said registered unit as its owner. The complaint averments also say the concern of the complainant as its owner. By the Ex.a1 it remains established that the said unit was registered as small scale industry unit. In the absence of any cogent material to the effect that the said unit was sanctioned under the self employment scheme, the said fact alleged by the complainant, which is required to be proved in view of its denial from the opposite parties side is not remaining established.
8. The Ex.A1 an un-attested Xerox copy of the letter dated 27-02-2003 the original of which said to have been addressed by the complainant to the AD.E., C.P.D.C.A.P. Limited, Adoni (opposite party No.1) alleging the enclosure of the D.D. for a Rs.500/- for checking the meter of S.C.No.10956 alleging it as showing wrong readings. The Ex.A3 is a Xerox reminder letter to the Ex.A2 complaining of noncompliance of the request for checking the meter and assigning the reasons for not paying the abnormal bill of 1/2003 and exhibiting its readiness to pay the minimum charges furnishing therewith the particulars of consumption of early period in between June, 2002 to January, 2003. The notice in Ex.A4 alleges the defect in the meter as showing the abnormal consumption and the payment of Rs.500/- as D.D. for testing and rectification of the said defect and the high handed disconnection of service of supply of electricity energy by the opposite party without any notice. But he perusal of the Ex.B1 indicates the testing of the complainant’s meter on 11-03-2003 at 12.45 hours in the presence of the complainant’s himself. Hence, there appears no substance in the connection of the complainant that the opposite parties not complied the request of the complainant as to the meter. The perusal of the said test report in Ex.B1 indicates no defects in the said meter. Hence the consumption that the meter exhibits must be one for that was consumed. The consumption particulars of the early period of the complainant’s I.S.C. No.10956 filed in Ex.B2 and Ex.A3 are similar and shows the consumption of more energy in the months of 3/2002 to 5/2002 ranging from a minimum of 1596 units to a maximum of 3747 units and in the same way a minimum consumption 2362 units in 12/2002 and a maximum of 4278 units in 1/2003 and the other readings of the consumed current are the similar in the other months of 2001 and 2002. Hence, the high consumption reading in certain months of the both the units 2002 and 2003 in-spite of the change of the meter in the light of the uniformity of the consumption readings of the other months with little variances, does not appear to be on account of any considerable defect in the meter but on account of consumption of more energy.
9. The opposite parties side contends the supply of electricity to the complainant’s unit was disconnected on default of the payment of the electricity consumption bills for the months of 1/2003 payable in 2/2003. The letter dated 16-08-2003 in Ex.A3 also admits the nonpayment of the consumption bill of Rs.18,941/- pertaining to the January, 2003 consumption. The said nonpayment of the bill of Rs.18,941/- appears in the subsequent period bills in theEx.A7 also as it was shown as arrears. The disconnection of the supply of the complainant’s units was also envisaged in ex.A8 as on account default of the payment of the bill of Rs.18,941/-.
10. The mere feeling of the complainant as to the high consumption without any proof as to the defect in the meter changed in 3/2002 and tested on 11-03-2003 and found as defect-less, cannot be attributed to any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. When the high consumption cannot attributable to any of the faulty service of the opposite parties, the complainant is bound to pay the demand given for the consumed electrical energy and when he defaults in the said payment the disconnection of supply of the electrical energy by the opposite party to the complainant’s unit does not amount to any deficiency of service as the said conduct of the opposite party in disconnection the service of the supply is the rightful Act.
11. The complainant alleges the demand bill of Rs.11,145/- in Ex.A5 bunch of demand bills was paid by him under protest. But no substantiating material appears in support of the said contention as the none of the Ex.A6 bunch of the receipts for the payment of the demand bills envisages as such.
12. When the supply of the electricity to the unit of the complainant was rightly stopped on default of the payment of the consumption bills of Rs.18,941/- there appears no bonafidies in the cause of action in the complainant and in the alleged deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
13. The Ex.A9 the bunch of three courier services bears no relevancy to the case as they stood the name of G.Nagaraju who is having no concern with the case especially when no where its relevancy was pleaded.
14. Consequently, the claim of the complainant being devoid of merit and force for want of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant being not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the said state of circumstances the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances each party to the proceedings bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 24th day of November, 2004.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of certificate for permanent registration Department of Industries issued to
Gattu Mallaiah Sons.
Ex.A2 Covering letter dated 27-02-2003 as D.D. for Rs.500/- was sent to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Adoni.
Ex.A3 Letter dated 16-08-2003 addressed by complainants Factory to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. Transco Adoni. (Office copy).
Ex.A4 Legal Notice dated 09-02-2004 issued by complainants counsel to opposite party No.1.
Ex.A5 Bills for September, 2002 to January, 2003 (Bunch of 5 bills).
Ex.A6 Receipts for the some bunch of five receipts.
Ex.A7 Bills from February, 2003 to April, 2003 (Bunch of four bills).
Ex.A8 Letter as opposite party No.2 dated 03-02-2004 to the Chief General Manager, Commercial. A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad.
Ex.A9 Bunch of three courier receipts.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Test report of C.T. Meter service dated 11-03-2003 (Attested Xerox copy).
Ex.B2 Consumption particulars of present supply dated 02-06-1985.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
