Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/80/2016

M/s. Satyanarayana Oil Mill, rep. by its Partner Chaluvadi Subramanyam, alias Chaluvadi Bala subramanuam son of Kannaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The superintendent Engineer, APSPDC Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S.M. Shaida, Y.Ramaiah

14 Nov 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :09-08-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:14-11-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the 14^th  day of   NOVEMBER, 2017

 

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

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

 

C.C.No.80/2016

 

Satyanarayna  Oil Mill,

Represented by its’ Partner,

Chaluvadi Subramanyam  @

    Chaluvadi  Bala Subramanyam,

S/o.Kannaiah,Hindu, Aged 52 years,  

Business man,Residing at R.N.Pet, Gopuram Street,

Nellore.                                                                                     ..… Complainant         

                                                             Vs.

 

1.	The Superintendent Engineer, APSPDC Limited, Vidyuth Bhavan, Dargamitta, Nellore.
2.	The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APSPDC Limited, Stonehousepet, Nellore.
3.	The Electricity Revenue  Officer, Stonehousepet, Nellore.                                                                             ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri S.M. Shaida, advocate for the complainant and                                                           Sri   K. Padmanabhaiah,    advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum passed the following:

 

ORDER

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

 

          The complainant filed this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3  to declared that the notice dated 30-06-2016 issued by the opposite parties to complainant is illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the said alleged bill amount ofRs.86,961/-, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages  and for causing mental torture, costs and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

         2.       The brief   averments of the complaint are as follows that:  the complainant is having  and doing business  in oils under the name and style of  M/s.Satyanarayana  Oil Mill, having  its office at RSR School, Thadikala Bazar Centre, Nellore    and the complainant is doing the said business for last several years.

          The complainant further submits that  the complainant  is having electricity connection to the said mill   i.e., M/s. Satyanarayana  Oil Mill bearing service connection number 3321306013357   and service number 13357.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant has been paying electricity consumption  bills of the said mill for the last several years regularly as per meter reading and as per the bills  issued by the opposite parties.  It is further submitted that every month   the electricity authorities has been attending and issuing bills  as per the readings to the complainant and the complainant has been paying the said bills without fail and nothing is due to the opposite parties.

          The complainant further submitted that the opposite party  issued a notice  to the  complainant   dated 30-06-2016 alleging that, the above said  meter was run defectively and it was run short fall for a period of two months and due to that, the complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.86,961/- to the opposite parties.  In the said notice it was further  alleged that the said defective  period  is 05-04-2016  to 01-06-2016.

           The complainant further submits that  the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the  opposite parties.  The above said notice issued by the  opposite parties.   The above said notice  issued by the  opposite parties basing on whims and  fancies. It is further submitted that the said meter is not  working properly and it was showing excess reading and the same was informed to the  opposite parties  by the complainant.  But  the  opposite parties without taking the requests of the complainant has been issuing   the bills excessively.  As  there is no other go, the complainant has been paying  the said bills though he  did not consume  the said power to the extent of the said alleged bills issued by the opposite parties.

          The complainant further submits that  the opposite parties   found that the aid meter is defective  and hence the same was removed and after removing the same, they  got  issued the above said notice as if the complainant is liable to pay the above said amount of Rs.86,961/-.  The  complainant is not liable to pay the said amount to the  opposite party and  as per the reading of the said meter   the complainant  is liable to pay the  bills  for real consumption.  The said notice is issued by the opposite party illegally and basing on the aid notice, the opposite parties are threatening the complainant   that if   the complainant failed to pay the said amount they would disconnect the said connection.  The complainant submits that the complainant is not liable to pay the said  amount.  The said notice is illegal.  The complainant further submits that the complainant paid  prior bills and subsequent bills of the said alleged notice.

         The complainant further submits that after receiving the said notice the complainant approached the opposite parties  and questioned them about the illegal notice. Then,  the opposite parties stated that due to over  sight, they got issued the said notice and not liable to pay the such amount.  It is further submitted that about one week back the opposite parties came  to the premises  of the business and threatened the complainant  that they would disconnect the service connection    and submit  to allow the complaint with costs.

         3.     The opposite parties  1 to 3 did not  file any written version.

         4.      On behalf of the  complainant, the affidavit of P.W.1  filed and Exs.A1 and A2 marked.

         5.      On behalf of the opposite parties,  the affidavit of R.W.1 filed.

         6.     Written arguments on behalf of  both parties not filed.

         7.      Heard arguments on behalf of learned counsels for both parties.

         8.      Now the points for consideration are:

         (1)     Whether the  complaint filed by the  complainant under Section-2 of

                    Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging  deficiency  of service against

                   the opposite parties 1 to 3  is maintainable?

        (2)       To what  relief, the complainant is entitled?

           9.         POINT No.1:The learned counsel for the complainant submits by  relying  upon evidence of  P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2  that the   complainant is having service connection bearing No.3321306013357 and service number 13357 and the complainant is regularly  paying the electricity bills but  on 30-06-2016, the opposite parties  issued Ex.A1 notice demanding the complainant for payment of Rs.86,961/- without any fault  on the part of the complainant  and hence the complainant filed this complaint against  the  opposite parties 1 to 3 to declare the notice   dated 30-06-2016 issued by the  opposite parties to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.86,961/-  as illegal   and submits to award damages and costs of the complaint.

                  On the other hand the learned counsel  for the opposite parties 1 to 3   submits that  on inspection of the opposite parties they noticed that the meter of the complainant was not working properly  and as the opposite parties  noticed the defect meter, they  removed    the same and installed new  electric meter  and on test they noticed the  less consumption of electricity by 66.12% and hence after  assessing  the income the opposite parties issued  Ex.A1 notice demanding the complainant  for payment of Rs.86,961/-  and  hence as the assessment  made under Section-126  of Electricity Act, 2003, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

         In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for the both parties and as seen from the contention  of opposite parties  that during the periodical inspection by the  Assistant Divisional Engineer, C  & T Meters, Nellore inspected the service connection of the complainant and noticed the meter of complainant was recording 66.12%  hence  consumption due to  meter defect and later the said meter was replaced and  new  meter was installed and on  notice as there is  less  consumption of 66.12%  electricity  energy the opposite parties issued Ex.A1 notice demanding the complainant for payment of Rs.86,961/-.  The said  fact is not disputed by the complainant.  The opposite parties issued Ex.A1  notice demanding payment of Rs.86,961/- being the less consumption of  the electricity due to  the meter  defect. In view of the above said fact, we are of the opinion that as assessment   was made under Section-126 of  Electricity Act, 2003, we are of the opinion that  this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

In   U.P.Power Corporation Limited and others Vs. Anis Ahmad reported in  2013 (3) CPJ 1 SC =  AIR 2013 SC 2766.

 

        Wherein the Hon’ble APEX Court held that  A “complaint “  against the    assessment made by assessing officer under Section-126  or against the offences committed under Sections-135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before   a Consumer Forum.

          By relying upon the above decisions as  Ex.A1 notice was  issued to the complainant demanding   the complainant for payment of the less consumption charge of  Rs.86,961/-  hence we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 is not maintainable before  this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  By relying upon the above decision, we answer this point accordingly. 

          10.    POINT No.2:In view of our  answering on point No.1 accordingly against the complainant, the complaint filed by the complainant against  the opposite parties  before this Forum is not maintainable and the same has to be   returned to the complainant to represent the  same before proper authority.

           In the  result, the complaint is  returned to the complainant to represent the same before the  proper authority but  in the circumstances no costs.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  14^th day of  NOVEMBER, 2017.

 

          Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

26-10-2017

Sri Chaluvadi Subramanyam, S/o.Kannaiah, Nellore (Chief affidavit filed)

 

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

20-09-2017

Sri K. Ramesh Chowdary, S/o.Anjaneyulu, Working as Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL Limited, Nellore Town-II (chief  affidavit filed)

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	30-06-2016	Photostat copy of Lr.No.ADE/O/Town-II/S.Er./Fno.CTM/D.No.1242/16 Dated 30-06-2016 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A2  -	-	Photostat copy of electricity six bills  in two pages.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri S.M.Shaida and S.M.Subhani, Advocates,  5/356, Srirangarajapuram, Stonehousepet, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, “Sreerama Nilayam”. 1st street. 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

Date when free copy was issued: