This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; in the presence of Sri. A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties 1 to 3; 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 mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of a two stair building, situated at Khammam town, having two power service connection bearing Nos. 29861 & 43973.  The service connection bearing No.43973 was allotted to a single room, located on the top floor of the building under category-I.  The said building was given to Sri Vivekananda Vidyanikethan Aided High School for lease.  The complainant further submitted that on 06-07-2009, the opposite party No.2 issued provisional assessment order by alleging that the consumer used un-authorized power under service connection bearing No.43973 for general purpose instead of domestic purpose, it was observed by Assistant Divisional Engineer, while inspection on 01-07-2009 and demanded to pay Rs.50,301/- towards levy of charges for 62 months (5 years 2 months).  After receipt of the same, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.25,226/- on 01-08-2009 and submitted an application by requesting to enquire into the matter.  Even though, the opposite party No.1 issued final order by confirming the provisional assessment order without making any enquiry and prior notice.  And also leveled allegations as un-authorized usage of electricity and issued receipt dated 01-08-2009 under theft and malpractice. The complainant also submitted that the service connection bearing No.43973 is never utilized for institution, utilizing only for single room for domestic purpose, the institution has separate service connection under category-II and the complainant also paid monthly consumption bills without any fault.  However, the opposite parties levied the charges by alleging un-authorized use of power without any previous objections at any point of taking of meter reading, is illegal and arbitrary, due to which, suffered a lot and compelled to file the present complaint by seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.25,226/- by directing the final assessment order as unfair and illegal and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

3.       In support of her case the complaint filed affidavit and also filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.

Ex.A1:-Provisional Assessment order, dt. 16-07-2009, issued by

  A.D.E./Operation / Khammam town.

Ex.A2:-Final Assessment order, dt. 30-06-2010 issued by D.E./Audit

            & Assessments, Warangal.

Ex.A3:-Permanent Receipt dt.01-08-2009 for Rs.25,226/- vide

            service connection No.43973.

Ex.A4:-Monthly Consumption Bills & Payment Receipts (14 No’s).

4.       On being noticed, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  

5.       In the counter, the opposite parties submitted that the complainant utilized the service connection bearing No.43973 for 1 HP water motor for watering plants and toilets in the school premises, comes under category-VII, the inspection officer personally observed the same and obtained signatures of the representative of complainant at the time of inspection and lodged a case according to the physical condition of the premises.  The provisional assessment notice, show cause notice and the final order were served to the complainant in accordance with the general terms & conditions of power supply.  Further it is also stated that the complainant obtained service connection by misleading the department.  The A.D.E/ Operations, Khammam Town issued provisional assessment notice for Rs.50,301/- by calculating the period from April 2004 to July 2009 and basing on the records and after proper enquiries, the opposite party No.1 passed final order dt. 30-06-2010. Thereafter, the complainant approached D.E./Energy / Audit, Warangal and preferred appeal.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

6.       Along with a petition the opposite parties filed exhibits B1 to B3.

Ex.B1:-Inspection notes, dt. 01-02-2009, issued by

  A.D.E./Operation / Khammam town.

Ex.B2:-Provisional Assessment order, dt. 16-07-2009 issued by

            A.D.E. along with acknowledgement.

Ex.B3:-Final Assessment Order, dt.30-06-2010 along with

            acknowledgement.

7.       In support of her case, the complainant filed written arguments by re-iterating the same averments as mentioned in the complaint.      

8.       In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief

                              as prayed for?

Point:-        

          It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties / N.P.D.C.L. allotted two power service connections to the premises of the complainant.  The  service connection bearing No. 29861 was released for commercial purpose and the service connection bearing No.43973 was for domestic purpose and also admitted that the said premises was leased to an Aided School and the same is running since 1976.  After making inspection, the opposite parties mentioned the same in the final assessment order dt.30-06-2010 that the school was running for educating the poor children and the service connection bearing No.43973 was being utilized purely for School, evidenced under exhibit B3.  It seems that the service connection bearing No.43973 is not used for general purpose, it has been used only for the purpose of watering of plants and for toilets, situated in the school premises.  Moreover, the inspection report did not speak about the usage of power for general purpose under service connection bearing No.43973 other than watering of plants and toilets in the school premises and the highest monthly consumption bill on record was issued for Rs.428/- i.e. prior to four months to the inspection.  On the other hand the opposite parties failed to file any evidence to show that the consumer utilized the excess power during the disputed period.  No doubt, it is clear that the service connection bearing No.43973 was used for the purpose of watering of plants and toilets for institution, ultimately, it was used for the purpose of educating poor children, not for the purpose of other activity.  However, the opposite parties levied charges arbitrarily on 01-08-2009 without considering the declaration, given by the complainant regarding the Grant-In-Aid, provided by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.236, dt. 17-10-1989, w.e.f. 01-09-1985 by declaring that the school as Semi Government School and as such we feel that merely because it is utilized for promoting education for poor children, cannot be categorized that it is utilized for other general purpose, in this regard we relied upon the judgment of NCDRC in Delhi Public School Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., and Ors.  I (2015) CPJ 212 (NC). On the other hand, the opposite parties placed the decisions of Higher Forums, delivered in Southern Trades Corporation Servicing Station Vs. Superintending Engineer, 1996 – ALD – 3 – 693 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh), Sri Venkateswara Stone Crusher, Kanigiri Vs. The Chairman A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad and Ors (SCDRC, Hyderabad) and in Maharashtra State Electricity Board Vs. M/s. Swasthic Industries, but the facts are varied from the present case on hand.

In view of the aforesaid facts and in the light of above decision we are of the opinion that the allegation raised by the opposite parties regarding the un-authorized use of power supply and imposition of Rs.50,301/- as levy on the consumer is not just and proper and against the principles of natural justice.  Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.25,226/-, collected from the complainant on 01-08-2009 vide permanent receipt No.39859, accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the complainant.    

9.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.25,226/- by adjusting the same, equally in future monthly bills.  Further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

           Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 25^th day of May, 2015.

                                                  FAC President               Member      

                                           District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

     District Consumer Forum, Khammam.