Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/97/2013

1.Bandi Ramanamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Assistant Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

D.RamaRao

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

Date of filing       :  27-07-2013

Date of Disposal :   09-07-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Thursday, this the  9th day of JULY, 2015.

 

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

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

                             

                      C.C.No.97/2013

 

1. Bandi Ramanamma,

Aged about 60 years, Hindu,

W/o.(Late) Papaiah,

Resident at H.No.11/274(2),

Brahmin Street, Santhapet, Nellore.

 

2.  Karnati Gurivi Reddy,

Aged about 59 years, Hindu,

S/o.(Late) Narayana Reddy,

Having office at H.No.11/274(2),

Brahmin Street, Santhapet, Nellore.                               …  Complainants

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

                                                                                

    1.The Assistant Engineer

       Southern Power Distribution Co. of

        A.P.Ltd., West-II Section,

       Electricity Office, Old Hospital Road,

       Santhapet, Nellore.

 

     2.The Assistant Accounts Officer,

Town-I, Kotamitta ERO T-I,

Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P.Ltd.,

Kotamitta, Nellore.                                                   … Opposite parties

 

 

    This matter coming on  26-06-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Rama Rao, 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 N.S.KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

 

1.      The brief averments of the complaint are that the 1st complainant is having electricity service connection nos.331321005693 and 3313210069690. She let out her house as a tenant with service connection no.3313210069690 to the 2^nd complainant, for his office purpose.  The 2^nd complainant is a beneficiary to the 2^nd service connection since he paid the consumption charges bill every month without any default.  The 2^nd complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,480/- for the period of July, 2012 and August, 2012 and also Rs.39/- for a period of August, 2012 and September, 2012 on 11-09-2012 and 21-09-2012 respectively.  On the demand notice issued by the opposite parties under protest and threat of disconnection, the complainant alleged that they got issued legal notice to the opposite parties dated 18-08-2012,  on the complaint of disconnection and also defective meter, but no response from them.   

 

2.       The complainant further stated that on 19-11-2012, the said meter was tested by the Additional Assistant Engineer, L & T Meters, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., A.K.Nagar and found that meter calibrator is not functioning and issued test record certificate.

 

3.     The 2^nd complainant further alleged that the opposite parties 1 and 2 intentionally not providing reconnection as well as not providing statement of account and inspite of several submissions made for reconnection and the rectification of meter, they kept quite.  Further, the 2^nd complainant alleged that without power supply he was facing professional problems and causing loss of income of Rs.1,20,000/-  and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony.  Since there is no response from the opposite parties, the complainants 1 and 2 filed their complaint seeking relief as prayed for in the complaint for deficiency of service.

 

4.        The 2^nd opposite party filed adoption memo stating that the 2^nd opposite party adopted the written version/counter of 1^st opposite party as his own written version/counter.  On the other hand the 1^st opposite party filed written version/counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint except that are admitting that the 1^st complainant is a registered consumer of two service connections and bearing the consumption charges regularly for the two service connections without any default.  Further, the opposite parties contended that the 2^nd complainant is not a registered consumer and also they did not aware of the 2^nd complainant as a tenant.  Further, no disconnection was made at any time and loss incurred by the 2^nd complainant for a tune of Rs.2,20,000/- is utterly false.  As such, there is no deficiency of service on their part and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

5.   The points for determination would be for consideration:

 

1. Whether there is  deficiency of service on the part

of the opposite parties? If so, whether the complainants

are entitled reliefs, as prayed for in the complaint?

 

2. To what relief ?

 

 

6.    On behalf of the complainant, affidavit filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and on the other hand the opposite parties filed affidavits and no documents were marked.  Both parties filed their written arguments.  Heard the arguments, on behalf of the counsel for the complainant and also counsel for the opposite parties.  

 

POINTS:

 

7.  We have perused the record. The admitted facts are that the 1^st opposite party is a consumer having two electricity service connections.  It is also admitted fact that the questioned meter was defective in nature and it requires test report. 

 

8.    It is disclosed from the material on record that the 1^st complainant stated that she let out the portion of the house that the electricity service connection no.3313210069690 to the 2^nd complainant for his office purpose and that he is beneficiary to the said   service connection since he paid monthly power consumption charges.    To establish his bonafied proof as tenant, no documentary evidence such as, let out the house on rental agreement to evident that the 2^nd complainant is a tenant of the 1^st complainant.  Thus, there is any amount of doubt arises as to whether the 2^nd complainant is a tenant on the premises of the 1^st complainant.  Therefore, there is no locus standi to file the complaint along with the 1^st complainant since he cannot be considered as a consumer and also beneficiary of the service.

 

9.    It is the case of the complainant that power was disconnected, even though the bill amounts paid by the 2^nd complainant under protest and threat of disconnection. Except self serving statement on affidavit of the complainants, there is no record proof of notice placed by the complainants about the disconnection having been effected by the opposite parties.  On the other hand, it is specific contentions of the opposite parties that the power was never disconnected at any time and that the entire bill amounts paid by the 1^st complainant regularly. Further the opposite parties did not know the 2^nd complainant as a tenant residing in the premises of the 1^st complainant and that the claim made by him is a wrongful gain since he has no locus standi to negotiate with them about the alleged disconnection. Generally, for every service connection, the electricity board made arrangements of cord for recording the consumption of power every month and the lineman records the same.   The complainant could have placed the material before this Forum as to on which date the disconnection was effected. The defects found in the meter will not affect the power of the disconnection. As per the requisition of the complainant, the electricity authorities attended on 19-11-2012 and issued a report of “meter calibrator not functioning”. In the absence of allegations of disconnection, the contention of the affidavit of the complainants cannot be accepted as gospel truth. No trustworthy evidence placed by the complainant to rebut the evidence of the opposite parties.  The present complainant appeared to have engineered by the 2^nd complainant to get wrongful gain from out of the mechanical defect found in the meter.  The alleged professional setback said to have been suffered by the 2^nd complainant cannot be accepted as it is only the concocted story filed by him.  The case of the opposite parties is supported by plausible evidence.  Under no stretch of the imagination it can be said that there was deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties.  These circumstances are very much clear from the fact that on the application from the complainants, the opposite parties attended defective meter and issued test report.  Thus, the present complaint is misconceived and lack of bonafides.   Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

 

  

10.     In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs.

 

Dictated to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the  9th  day of  JULY, 2015.    

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

                 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANTS:

 

NIL -

 

 

                  WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

NIL -

                                                                         

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANTS:

 

Ex.A1	18-08-2012	:	Copy of legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A2	-	:	Postal receipts & acknowledgements (two in nos.)
Ex.A3	11-09-2012	:	Electricity bill (demand notice) and payment receipt for total Rs.3480/-
Ex.A4	21-09-2012	:	Electricity bill (demand notice) and payment receipt for total Rs.41/-
Ex.A5       Ex.A6       Ex.A7       Ex.A8	29-09-2012       19-11-2012       10-04-2013       -	:       :       :       :	Letter addressed by the advocate to the Senior Accounts Officer, Vidyut Bhavan, Nellore and Regd. postal receipts (two in nos.).   Photostat copy of test record receipt from the Additional Assistant Engineer, L.T. Meters, APSPDCL, Nellore.   Copy of letter addressed by the advocate to the opposite parties and registered postal receipts (two in nos).   Photo of electricity meter service No.3313210069690.

 

 EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                     

 

• NIL -

                                                                Id/-                 

                                                       PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

 

1) Sri D.Ramarao, Sri Sk.Ghouse Basha, Advocates, Nellore

 

2) Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, “Sreerama Nilayam”, 1^st Street, 23/1301,

    Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

 

Date when order copies are issued: