This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Yedunuthala Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri.G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties 1 to 4; notice to opposite parties No. 5 & 6 served; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O R D E R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is having service connections bearing No.22210, 14235 and 15240 and he is doing business by running a hotel under the name and style of “Brundavanam Hotel” at Palvancha.  The complainant submitted that he obtained a service connection number 22210 and at the time of sanction the electricity authorities estimated the supply of 40KWA is sufficient to business run by the complainant, accordingly the complainant paid the amount to the electricity authorities and he is paying entire electricity bills regularly to the opposite party department.  The complainant further submitted that one of the employee of the electricity authorities visited the hotel of the complainant, without consulting any person in the said hotel and without any enquiry he himself calculated the consumption of the electricity and sent the report to the department and from there the department illegally sent the excess bills to the complainant, on 07-03-2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,338/-, again on 27-03-2014 he paid an amount of Rs.59,962/- in total the complainant paid an amount of Rs.95,300/- as an excess amount though he did not consumed the same.  After that the complainant enquired about the huge building of the electricity bills per month, upon that he came to know that the bills issued for the sanctioning load for 74KWHT bills.  The complainant further submitted that the electrical vigilance authorities have inspected the hotel of complainant and calculated the sanctioned load upon that on 21-11-2013 they declared that 56KW of load is sufficient to the business of the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties calculated the excess load on 13-02-2014, because of the illegal estimation, they converted the same from HT billing and also calculated as the load of 74KW, but actually the consumption was not at all utilized by the complainant.  The complainant further submitted that after knowing the said fact immediately the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 and requested to adjust the said bills which were paid by the complainant by excess amount, for that the opposite parties 1 to 3 advised the complainant to send a written requisition on that the complainant sent a written requisition on opposite parties 1 to 6 and requested to adjust the said amount for the other service connections.  The complainant further submitted that even after sending the requisition by the complainant to the opposite parties, the opposite parties No.1 to 6 not at all considered the same and they sent another bill to the complainant on the sanction load of 74KW to calculate the HT bill by demanding to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,026/-, after receiving the said bill again the complainant sent another requisition on 20-08-2014 through Register Post with regarding to adjustment of excess payment and also stay for payment of the present bill.  The complainant further submitted that vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties he issued notice on 05-09-2014 by demanding them to adjust the excess payment illegally collected from the complainant and also requested to withdraw the excess bill in the month of July and August 2014 and further demanded to calculate the original consumption of the load and fix the billing properly.  Even after receiving legal notice, the opposite parties failed to come forward to do the same, even after submitting so many representations by the complainant, the opposite parties could not come forward to calculate the actual consumption and sending the excess billing which is illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice as such the complainant approached the Forum. 

3.       Along with this complaint, the complainant filed a petition I.A.101/2014 u/s 151 of C.P.C., praying to direct the opposite parties to restrain the opposite parties from disconnecting the service connection bearing No.22210, of Palvancha town, Khammam district till disposal of main complaint.  After hearing the complainant, the forum issued urgent notice to respondents/opposite parties. 

4.       On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A1 to A7:-

Ex.A1:-Electricity bills (No.s 2) along with receipts for the month of February and March, 2014.

Ex.A2:-HT bill dt. 16-08-2014.

Ex.A3:-Representation given by complainant to the opposite parties dt. 20-08-2014 along with postal receipts.

Ex.A4:-Representation given by complainant to opposite parties dt. 11-08-2014.

Ex.A5:-Office copy of legal notice dt. 05-09-2014 along with postal receipts (6 Nos) and postal acknowledgements (5 Nos).

Ex.A6:-Electricity bill dt. 17-07-2014 along with receipt.

Ex.A7:-Photocopy of letter dt. 02-08-2014 addressed by ADE, Palvancha to AAO/ERO, Kothagudem.

5.       On receipt of notices, the opposite parties No.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.   In the counter opposite parties No. 1 to 4 submitted that the S.C.No.22210, Category II in Palvancha Town with a sanction load of 40KW, on 18-011-2013 A.D.E DPE-II, Khammam, inspected the SC. No.22210, and observed that the total connected load is 74KW, the inspection report case No.DPE/DPKMM/8014/13, dt. 21-11-2013 and the said inspection is signed by the consumer and basing on the load they changed the from load 40 to 74KW and demanded the security deposit and supervising charges in total Rs.95,300/- and the same was added in 1/14 to consumer service number and the said amount was paid in March, 2014 by the consumer.  The opposite parties also submitted that on verification of E.R.O/ Kothagudem / Records i.e. consumer ledger from 11/13 to 6/14 it was noticed by the E.R.O. staff that the billing was not done in HT category so that difference amount in between LT and HT Rs.78,012/- was raised in 6/14.  The opposite parties No.1 to 4 also submitted that the consumer approached the A.D.E./OP/Palvancha for reduction of load from 74KW to 56KW and adjust the additional load amount to his other service numbers, basing on the representation ADE/OP Palvancha inspected the service premises on 02-08-2014 and sent a letter dt. 02-08-2014 to AAO/ERO, Kothagudem for reduction of load from 74KW to 56KW.  The opposite parties further submitted that on 08-09-2014 the DE/OP/Kothagudem given an approval for reduction of load from 74KW to 56KW and also billing in LT category w.e.f. 02-08-2014 i.e. date of inspection of ADE/OP/Palvancha vide memo No. DE/O/KGM/DNo.1621/14, dt. 08-09-2014, based on the approval SC.No.22210 was billed in LT and load reduced them 74KW to 56KW and withdrawn Rs.19,905/- due to bill under LT category from 08-09-2014.  The opposite parties No.1 to 4 also submit that the at present the above service is billing in LT category-II with a connected load of 56KW, the department collected Rs.95,300/- which is not refundable towards development and Security Deposit, out of which Rs.59,300/- will be credited to the service connection No.22210 and the rest of the amount is adjusted to the consumer own service connections after getting the approval from the higher authorities.  The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant using power for commercial purpose, under section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and prayed to dismiss the complaint.  To support their contention they relied upon the judgment of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, Pramod Laxman Zinje Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board and others IV (2004) CPJ 490.

6.       On behalf of the opposite parties, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits B1 to B19.

Ex.B1:-Photocopy of Inspection Report, dt. 18-11-2013 by ADE/DPE/II Khammam.

Ex.B2:-Representation made by complainant to opposite parties dt. 25-07-2014.

Ex.B3:-Reply to the legal notice dt. 15-09-2014 by ADE/Operation, Palvancha.

Ex.B4:-Office note submitted to AAO/ERO/Kothagudem.

Ex.B5:-Photo copy of Revised Bill dt. September 2014.

Ex.B6:-Photocopy of Ledger between September 2013 to October 2014.

Ex.B7:-Photocopy of Memo dt.08-09-2014.

Ex.B8:-Photocopy of Ledger between October 2013 to October 2014.

Ex.B9:-Photocopy of Letter dt. 26-08-2014 addressed to DE/Operation Kothagudem.

Ex.B10:-Photo copy of Memo dt. 16-08-2014.

Ex.B11:-Photocopy of letter dt. 11-08-2014 addressed to DE/Operation, Kothagudem.

Ex.B12:-Representation made by complainant to AAO/ERO, Kothagudem, dt. 08-08-2014.

Ex.B13:-Representation made by the complainant to ADE/Operation, Palvancha, dt. 25-07-2014.

Ex.B14:-Photocopy of Revised bill for the month of July and August 2014.

Ex.B15:-Photo copy of HT Bill for the month of July and August 2014.

Ex.B16:-Photocopy of Revised Bill for the month of July, 2014.

Ex.B17:-Photocopy of Office Note submitted to AAO/ERO, Kothaudem along with Ledgers.

Ex.B18:-Photocopy of UO note submitted to AAO/ERO, Kothagudem.

Ex.B19:-Photocopy of LT inspection report dt. 21-11-2013.

7.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments, the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined?

Point:-  It is the case of the complainant is having service connections bearing No.22210, 14235 and 15240 and he is doing business by running a hotel under the name and style of “Brundavanam Hotel” at Palvancha.  According to the  complainant he obtained a service connection number 22210 and at the time of sanction the electricity authorities estimated the supply of 40KWA is sufficient to business run by the complainant, accordingly the complainant paid the amount to the electricity authorities and he is paying entire electricity bills regularly to the opposite party department,  one of the employee of the electricity authorities visited the hotel of the complainant, without consulting any person in the said hotel and without any enquiry he himself calculated the consumption of the electricity and sent the report the department and from there the department illegally sent the excess bills to the complainant.  According to the complainant, on 07-03-2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,338/-, again on 27-03-2014 he paid an amount of Rs.59,962/- in total the complainant paid an amount of Rs.95,300/- as an excess amount though he did not consumed the same.  The opposite parties calculated the excess load on 13-02-2014, because of the illegal estimation, they converted the same from HT billing and also calculated as the load of 74KW, but actually the consumption was not at all utilized by the complainant, after knowing the said fact immediately the complainant approached the opposite parties 1 to 3 and requested to adjust the said bills which were paid by the complainant by excess amount.  Even after sending the requisition by the complainant to the opposite parties, the opposite parties No.1 to 6 not at all considered the same and they sent another bill to the complainant on the sanction load of 74KW to calculate the HT bill by demanding to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,026/-, after receiving the said bill again the complainant sent another requisition on 20-08-2014 through Register Post with regarding to adjustment of excess payment and also stay for payment of the present bill.  Vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant issued notice on 05-09-2014 by demanding them to adjust the excess payment,  even after receiving legal notice, the opposite parties failed to come forward to do the same, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal. 

          From the documents and material available on record we observed that the complainant is running lodge in the name and style of “Brundavan Hotel” at Palvancha.  The complaint was filed by him alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties with a case that the bill in question raised and issued upon the complainant in respect of consumption of power supply to the lodge was exorbitant and excessive.  From the counter and documents submitted by the opposite parties we observed that the department collected Rs.95,300/- which is not refundable towards development and security deposit and it is submitted by the opposite parties that Rs.59,300/- will be credit to the service No.22210 and rest of the amount is adjusted to consumer own services after getting approval from the higher authorities, as such we cannot attribute any deficiency of service against the opposite parties.  It is an undisputed fact that the complainant running lodge for commercial purpose, therefore he cannot be called as a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act., as such this point is answered against the complainant.   

7.       In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is dismissed.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 16^th day of February, 2015.

  Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

   Member                  FAC President              

District Consumer Forum, Khammam