BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD

FA  1087/2007  against C.C. 27/2003, Dist. Forum-III, Hyderabad.         

Between:

M/s. Dhanalaxmi Roto Spinners Ltd.

Railway Station Road, Thimmapur

Rep. by its Director

K. N. Prasad, S/o. K.V.G. Krishna Murthy

Age: 37 years, Business

R/o. 15-9-55, Maharajgunj,

Hyderabad.                                                            ***                        Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                   And

1)  A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.

(Formerly APSEB)

Vidyut Soudha, Khairatabad

Hyderabad.

Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director

2)  The Superintendent  Engineer (Operations)

Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd.

Mahaboobnagar.                                        ***                         Respondents/

                                                                                                Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Appellants:                         M/s.  Suresh Kumar Bang.

Counsel for the Resps:                                M/s.  V. Ajay Kumar.

CORAM:

                     HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT 

&

                                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

TUESDAY, THIS THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by  the  complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum declining the relief of refund of Rs. 1,87,254/-  on termination of the agreement.

2)                 The case of the complainant   in brief is that   it is a company  obtained  H.T. service connection  No. MBN 439  for its industrial purpose from the respondent   A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd.  (herein after called APGENCO) by deposing  Rs. 3,13,610/-.  Later agreement was terminated  with effect from 25.5.1998 confirmed by  the Superintendent Engineer (Op2) by his letter Dt.  16.9.98.    When it  sought for refund of the deposit  the respondents did not pay.  On  that it has issued legal notice on  17.7.2000 for which  respondent gave reply  on  12.4.2001 with false allegations.    Failure to refund the  amount constitutes deficiency in service and therefore sought for a direction  against the respondents to pay Rs. 3,13,610/-  with interest @ 12% p.a., from 25.5.1998 till the date of payment together with compensation and costs.

3)                The respondents  APGENCO  resisted the case.    However, it admitted that it had entered into an agreement with the appellant on  11.4.1989 and started supplying power from  6.10.1989.   An amount of Rs. 3,87,000/- was available as deposit  as on the date of termination of the agreement which was made on  25.5.1998.    The power was also disconnected on the said day.    By virtue of clause 26.9 of the  agreement  it  had to pay all the dues amounting to Rs. 1,87,254/-  as on the date of termination.    It was adjusted from out of the deposit of Rs.  3,87,000/-, and an amount of Rs. 1,99,746/- was refundable.    Besides that,  the complainant had to observe certain formalities  like  removal of  CTPT (HT meter) and payment of dismantling charges.   Therefore the complainant was  entitled to  the balance of amount,  only after fulfilling this condition.    As per clause 28.3.  of the terms  and conditions of supply  it was liable to  pay interest @ 3% p.a.,  on existing consumption deposit.   An amount of  Rs. 9,288/- towards interest  on deposit as on 31.3.1998 was paid by adjustment against the dues in the month of May, 1998.    The cause of action has arisen at Mahaboobnagar and the Dist. Forum at Hyderabad  had no jurisdiction.    It contended  that it was not a consumer dispute.    Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed  his affidavit evidence  and got Exs. A1 to  A11 marked while the  APGENCO  did not file either affidavit evidence  or documents. 

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  admittedly an amount of Rs. 1,99,746/-  was lying in deposit.   The APGENCO ought to have paid  this amount.  Therefore it directed  it to pay   Rs. 1,99,746/-  with interest @ 9% p.a., from 25.5.1998  till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did  not appreciate the facts in correct perspective.    It ought to have seen that it had deposited   Rs. 3,87,000/-.  Except alleging that  an amount of Rs. 1,87,254/- was due  neither  a  notice was  served   nor any  document was filed  to establish the said fact.    Therefore it was entitled to the entire  amount together with interest   and costs.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that a deposit of Rs. 3,13,610/-  was made by the complainant  with the respondent  APGENCO  on  11.4.1989.  It is also not in  dispute that the  agreement was terminated on  25.5.1998, and  the complainant was entitled to this amount. 

9)                The  APGENCO alleges  that an amount of Rs. 1,87,254/-  was due from the complainant.   Therefore the said amount was adjusted against the deposit  of Rs. 3,87,000/- and it was liable to pay Rs. 1,99,746/-.    The complainant disputes  the said fact by filing affidavit evidence.    For the reasons best known the respondents   did not file  either affidavit evidence of its  officers  or any documents to controvert the said fact.    Counter was filed  by way of affidavit of R2.    However, he did not substantiate the said averments.    If really the complainant had to pay  some dues, it could have filed the documents evidencing  said fact.    It could  have filed account copy.  No demand  notice was ever served on the complainant  directing it to pay the amount nor intimated that it would  appropriate the amount  from out of the initial deposit.    Obviously,  this is a ruse  to get over the payment of  amount. Having terminated the agreement, it ought to have  settled the  account.    It should not  direct them to resort to courts.    Since electricity is one of the services  defined u/s 2(1)(o)  of the  Consumer Protection Act  the contention that the Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction  cannot be countenanced.    The contention that an amount of Rs. 1,87,254/- was due  is unwarranted.    No proceedings whatsoever were issued  for  dismantling lines etc. No estimation was made.  APGENCO  cannot keep the amount  by taking specious contentions.    The allegation that it was liable to pay interest @ 3% p.a.,  by virtue of the  contract was not even proved  by filing   the agreement entered into between them.    At least the said agreement could have been filed in order to appreciate  the said contention.    Therefore, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the amount  which was kept with it without refunding. 

10)              In the result the appeal is allowed.  Consequently the respondent APGENCO is directed to  pay Rs. 1,87,254/- together with amount ordered to be refunded by the Dist. Forum  with interest @ 9% p.a., from  25.5.1998 till the date of payment.    The appellant/complainant is also entitled to  costs of Rs. 2,000/- in the  appeal.  Time for compliance four weeks.           

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.    20. 04. 2010.  

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”