Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/67/2018

V.R.Hari Krishna Reddy, S/o Late Radha Krishna Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Addl. Divisional Engineer (Opn.) - Opp.Party(s)

M.Subrahmanyam, P.Hari Prasad

27 Jun 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 29.10.2018

Order Date:27.06.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.67/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

V.R.Hari Krishna Reddy,

S/o. late. Radha Krishna Reddy,

Business, Hindu, aged about 45 years,

D.No.16/549, Panagal Main Road,

Srikalahasti,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

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

            Rep. by its Additional Divisional Engineer (Opn.,),

            Opp. to M.P.D.O. Office,

            Thottambedu Post and Mandal,

            Srikalahasti,

            Chittoor District.

 

2.         Assistant Engineer (Opn.,),

            CCO-II, A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Bharadwaja Theertham,

            Srikalahasti Post and Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

3.         The Line Inspector (Panagal),

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Sub Station,

            Near SKIT College,

            Panagal,

            Srikalahasti Post and Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

4.         Assistant Accounts Officer,

            Electricity Revenue Office,

            Opp. to M.P.D.O. Office,

            Thottambedu Post and Mandal,

            Srikalahati,

            Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 20.06.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.M.Subrahmanyam, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12  of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant seeking direction to opposite parties, to refund the arrears amount of Rs.12,130/- being the 1/4^th amount of alleged arrears and 1^st 1/10^th installment amount of Rs.3600/- and 2^nd 1/10^th installment amount of Rs.3600/- collected from the complainant illegally and to stop payment of subsequent installments, and to refund security deposit amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant, besides payment of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for undergoing mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and payment of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

            2.  The complaint averments are as follows:-  The complainant is a consumer of Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APSPDCL), having domestic service connection bearing No.5432300024675, by paying electricity charges regularly as per consumption. On the application dt:19.11.2016 submitted by him, the load of the existing meter was reduced from 5 KW to 2 KW vide letter No.ADE/OSD/SKHT/HDC/D No.2370/16 dt:05.12.2016, and at that time, meter reading stood at 5435 as on 13.11.2016 in the said service meter and the same reading was continued till the end of  October / November 2016, but bill was raised for Rs.1038/- illegally on imaginative reading. The bill was paid by the complainant without noticing the defect, and he continued to pay the consumption charges regularly, as per the demand notices raised by the opposite parties, without observing the actual meter reading in good faith till the end of June / July 2017. The proportionate security deposit amount after reduction from 5KW to 2 KW was not refunded to the complainant or adjusted to the CC charges. In the month of July / August 2017, the meter opening reading was 5435 and closing reading was 5573 as on 14.08.2017 and the consumption was recorded as 138 units during the month. But the demand notice was sent as per bill No.00031 for Rs.1278/- for July / August 2017 and the bill was paid by the complainant vide receipt No.0614272 dt:19.08.2017 in the office of opposite party No.4. Similarly on 13.09.2017 the opening meter reading was shown as 5573 and closing reading was recorded as 5719 and units burnt was 146 and the demand notice received for August / September 2017, as per bill No.00016 was Rs.1350/- and the bill amount was also paid by the complainant as per PR No.25403 dt:22.09.2017. The opposite parties did not send any demand notice for the month of September / October 2017. The demand notice for the month of October / November 2017 was served on the complainant on 11.11.2017 with defective meter reading opening at 12214 and closing at 12214 as per bill No.00084 for Rs.22,878/-, in addition to that arrears amount Rs.44,934/- was added constituting a total amount of Rs.67,812/- by the opposite parties without any proof of consumption by the complainant. The meter reading was displayed due to defective running / jumping of the meter, for which complainant is not liable to pay any CC charges. Again on 13.12.2017 opposite party No.4 sent a demand notice for Rs.68,863/- in addition to normal CC charges as usual for the month of November / December 2017 stating that the said amount is arrears payable for unknown period. The Hon’ble APSPDCL Grievance Forum also pointed out the defective meter reading in their order dt:24.07.2018 and appreciated the withdrawal amount of Rs.21,451/-. Opposite party No.4 again on 05.01.2018 sent another demand notice for Rs.69,231/- in addition to normal CC charges for the month of December / January 2018 stating that the said amount is the arrears payable by the complainant and in case of default in payment of charges, the other connection provided for the building shall also be disconnected. On the representation made by the complainant to opposite party No.2 on 22.09.2017 to verify the meter, and further requested to reduce the bill amount, as the bill was abnormal and on high side. After verification of the meter by opposite party No.2, it is recommended to opposite party No.4 to spread over the accumulated reading from January 2015, and subsequently the meter was burnt due to short circuit in the month of November 2017, and the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 by the complainant on the same day requesting to inspect the meter and replace the burnt meter with a new one, and on his direction opposite party No.2 along with opposite party No.3 and other subordinates visited the complainant house, took photograph of the burnt meter and left without rectification or replacement of the meter. The complainant made a complaint before the Chairman, Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, APSPDCL, Tirupati, on 03.02.2018, praying to waive the alleged arrears and to replace the burnt meter and the same was numbered as CG No.322 of 2017-18. Having come to know about the complaint, opposite parties developed grudge against the complainant and disconnected the other service connection bearing No.5432300022047 in the same premises, which stands in the name of V.Lakshmi, who is the mother of the complainant without any notice or valid reasons. The complainant therefore got issued legal notice dt:13.03.2018 to opposite parties 1 to 3, and the same was received by them, but no reply was given. The opposite parties however complied the demand of the complainant and restored the connection on 17.03.2018 for the said service. The Grievance Forum passed an interim order dt:08.05.2018 directing the complainant to pay 1/4^th portion of the alleged arrears amount plus reconnection charges to install a new meter in the place of burnt meter. Accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,480/- on 15.05.2018 towards 1/4^th portion of alleged arrears, reconnection fee of Rs.100/- and meter cost of Rs.2250/- for replacement of burnt meter with a new meter, and the same was replaced on 17.05.2018. The Grievance Forum has passed final order on 24.07.2018 holding that the Department has withdrawn an amount of Rs.21,451/- from the alleged arrears of Rs.66,137/- and there is no scope to withdraw further arrears amount and directed the complainant to pay the balance amount in ten equal installments and disposed off the case, without considering the plea of the complainant and without insisting for the technical report on the burnt meter from the department, and allowed the complainant to prefer an appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad, vide order dated 08.05.2018 and 24.07.2018 of the Grievance Forum, Tirupati. While the complainant was preparing to go for an appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, opposite party No.3 approached the complainant at the instance of opposite party No.2 and threatened the complainant to pay the entire arrears amount at once otherwise they would disconnect the service connection on the next day. The complainant is a physically challenged person and incapable of paying arrears at a time. But he was forced to pay the arrears amount without giving any breathing time as directed by the Grievance Forum. The opposite party No.4 did not receive the money in installments and demanded to pay entire arrears amount in lumpsum and rejected the part payments. The complainant paid normal charges of Rs.1902/- together with 1^st installment arrears of Rs.3600/- as directed by the Grievance Forum, by way of demand draft drawn on SBI, Srikalahasti, incurring bank charges of Rs.68/- and 67/- respectively and sent by RPAD to opposite party No.4 by incurring postal charges of Rs.60/-. Thus the opposite parties 2 and 3 have given unbearable pressure and caused mental agony to the complainant, to pay arrears amount in lumpsum, and further he was deprived of right to approach Vidyut Ombudsman to file appeal, due to the threatenings by opposite parties 2 and 3. Subsequently, two demand notices one for Rs.1706/- on 04.09.2018 for the month of August / September 2018 and the other for Rs.1554/- on 02.10.2018 for the month of September / October 2018, were served on the complainant and the same was paid by the complainant along with 1/10^th portion of Rs.3600/- for two months. The Security Deposit of Rs.6,000/- paid by the complainant, which was mentioned up to July 2018 is removed from the demand notice from August 2018 onwards. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may be allowed by issuing appropriate directions as indicated above.      

            3.  Opposite party No.4 filed the written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 1 to 3. Opposite parties 1 to 4 contended as follows – The Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the ground that the case relates to assessment of electricity bills. As per Apex Court observation in 2008(4) C.P.R. 190 (SC), “In matters of assessment of electricity bills the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Act”. In view of this decision, the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. Further the complainant approached the Forum seeking redressal of consumer grievances at Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Tirupati, by filing complaint in CG No.322/2017 for self same relief and the said complaint was disposed off on merits by directing the complainant to pay balance amount in ten equal installments apart from payment of regular bills and made clear that if aggrieved by the order, the complainant may approach Vidyut Ombudsman. Hence, Resjudicata comes into operation, as the issue before this Forum is already decided by Grievance Forum. It is admitted that complainant is a consumer having S.C.No.5432300024675 and it is also admitted that complainant derated the connected load from 5 KW to 2 KW with effect from 12/2016 and he was paying CC charges regularly as per the demand notice till 9/2017, and he never approached the authorities of APSPDCL for refund of excess security deposit due to deration of load from 5 KW to 2 KW, as per procedure prescribed in the terms and conditions of electrical energy. The complainant has not made any request or applied for refund / adjustment of security deposit either in Call Centre / Mee-seva for the same. The complainant paid CC charges for the months of August 2017 and September 2017. Thereafter, for the month of October 2017 a demand notice was served on him for a sum of Rs.66,137/- towards consumption of 6,495 units, but he did not pay the bill and approached opposite party No.2 for verification of meter vide his letter dt:23.10.2017. Opposite party No.2 has verified the meter condition and found that the bill for the month of 10/2017 issued with accumulated consumption. He addressed a letter to opposite party No.4 to spread over the accumulated consumption for the period from 1/2012 to 10/2017. In pursuance of said letter, the opposite party spread over the accumulated consumption of 6495 units for the period from 11/2012 to 10/2017 and excess demand amount of Rs.21,203/- has been deducted vide letter in RJ.No.47/10-2017 and the payable amount is arrived at Rs.44,934/- since the meter reading from 3/2016 to 8/2017 shows as “0” (nil consumption). The opposite party calculated average consumption and made the complainant liable to pay Rs.44,934/- and informed the same to the complainant, but he did not pay the said amount. The complainant let out a portion of the building for rent and the meter was fixed inside the building, and therefore building is under door locked when the meter reader visited the building, and hence meter reading was noted as –nil- consumption from 3/2016 to 7/2017. Thereafter, meter recorded as 138 and 146 units respectively for the months of August and September 2017. The complainant is therefore called upon to prove each and every allegation that is denied by the opposite party. During the month of November 2017, the meter reader has issued demand bill for Rs.22,879/- towards consumption of 2260 units as recorded. Due to abnormal high average units for the period November 2017, opposite party No.2 was recommended for revision of November 2017 CC bill of Rs.22,879/-. This abnormality in the bill was raised since the meter was burnt out and average units taken by the billing software based on previous three months consumption i.e.(6495 + 146 + 138) duly taking the average units and amount of Rs.21,451/- has been reduced and the revised bill for the month of November 2017 was issued for Rs.1,428/- (Rs.22,879-21,451) and the meter burnt cost of Rs.2,250/- was included in complainant’s CC bill and intimated the same to complainant vide letter RJ.No.55/-3-2018. But for the reasons best known to complainant, he has not paid the said amount. Hence, the supply was disconnected in the month of November 2017. The complainant has not paid the revised bills for the months of October 2017 and November 2017 even after disconnection of electricity supply. The outstanding balance thus arrived at Rs.48,513/-. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant filed CG.No.322/2017 before the Grievance Forum of APSPDCL. On perusal of the record, the Chairman passed interim orders directing the opposite parties to restore supply on deposit of Rs.12,130/- being the 1/4^th of the disputed bill apart from meter burnt charges, reconnection charges on or before 18.05.2018 and directed the complainant to pay his regular monthly CC charges till disposal of the main case. In compliance of the said order, the complainant has paid CC charges of Rs.14,380/- on 15.05.2018 with reconnection fee of Rs.100/- and the supply was restored immediately. After due enquiry, the Chairman has finally passed orders on 24.07.2018 and directed the complainant to pay balance amount of Rs.37,478/- in     10 equal installments and also made clear that if aggrieved by the order, the complainant may represent to Vidyut Ombudsman, A.P., Hyderabad, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. But the complainant did not prefer any appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman, A.P., Hyderabad, and therefore the order passed by the Chairman has become final. The complainant, therefore, has not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, and as such the complaint may be dismissed.

            4.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A23. R.W.1 filed the affidavit on behalf of opposite parties and Ex.B1 is marked.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

            6. Point:-  Ex.A1 is proceedings of Assistant Divisional Engineer, Srikalahasti, dt:05.12.2016, which shows that as per the request of complainant 5 KW load is reduced to 2 KW with regard to the service No.5432300024675. There is no dispute about Exs.A2, A3, A5, A9, A10, A11, A16, A19, A21, which are demand notices, issued by APSPDCL on various dates to the complainant. Similarly, there is no dispute about the payment under Ex.A6 dt:22.09.2017 issued by APSPDCL, Ex.A14 receipt issued by APSPDCL dt:15.05.2018 and Ex.A20 original copy of receipts        2 nos.  issued by APSPDCL dt:19.09.2018. It is also not in dispute that complainant made representations on 22.09.2017 and 23.10.2017 respectively to opposite party No.2 with regard to replacing the burnt meter with new meter. There is no dispute that the complainant earlier filed complaint before APSPDCL Grievance Forum, Tirupati, with regard to the same subject matter and obtained interim orders under Ex.A13 dt:08.05.2018. There is no dispute that the Chairman, Grievance Forum, passed interim order directing the complainant to pay 1/4^th of the disputed bill amount apart from meter burnt charges and reconnection charges on or before 18.05.2018. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid the said amount. There is no dispute that the Chairman, Grievance Forum, APSPDCL, finally disposed off the complaint on 24.07.2018 directing the complainant to pay balance of Rs.37,478/- in 10 equal installments, and further the complainant is informed in the said order that he can approach Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, in case he is aggrieved by the order. Admittedly, the complainant did not prefer any appeal before Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad, as indicated in the final order, passed by the Grievance Forum, APSPDCL, Tirupati. For that the complainant herein says that the opposite parties officials came and threatened him to comply the order of the Grievance Forum, for restoration of electricity immediately, and due to such threatening, he could not prefer any appeal before Vidyut Ombudsman. This reasoning of the complainant is absurd and cannot be accepted by this Forum. When the legal remedy is provided to the complainant, he should have approach the proper authority to seek redressal. But instead of doing so, he approached this Forum seeking relief on the ground that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite  parties. As per the prayer portion the complainant indirectly seeking direction to  opposite parties to refund the arrears amount of Rs.12,130/- being 1/4^th amount of alleged arrears along with Rs.3600/-  paid 1^st and 2^nd installments each out of 10 installments, as directed by the Grievance Forum, APSPDCL. This prayer itself is misconceived in our view because having complied the orders passed by the Grievance Forum, APSPDCL, the complainant has come to this Forum, to nullify the directions of Grievance Forum, without approaching Vidyut Ombudsman. Hence, we are of the view that the relief is totally misconceived. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaints, which raise disputes relating to meters. Ex.A15, which is final order passed by Grievance Forum in C.G.No.322/2017-18/Tirupati Circle, they have dealt at length, the dispute raised by the complainant with regard to defective meter, alleged arrears and consumption charges and passed the order. The contention of the complainant is that, his contentions were not considered by the Grievance Forum, cannot be accepted. The citations submitted by the complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Ex.B1 gives full details regarding the units consumed and CC charges levied by APSPDCL. It cannot be disputed, as it is signed by Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSPDCL, Srikalahasti. As rightly contended by the counsel for opposite parties, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, in view of the Apex Court observation in 2008(4) C.P.R. 190 (SC), in which it is held  “In matters of assessment of electricity bills the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Act”. Hence, we are of the considered view that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed.

            7.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.           

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 27^th day of June, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                         

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri V.R. Hari Krishna Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1:  Sri Gunja Ramprasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Proceedings of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Sub-Division, Srikalahasti, Dated 05.12.2016 filed by the complainant.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 13.11.2016.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 14.08.2017.
	Original copy of Receipt issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 19.08.2017.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 13.09.2017.
	Original copy of Receipt P.R.No.25403, Dt. 22.09.2017 issued by APSPDCL.
	Office copy of Representation by the complainant Dt.22.09.2017 addressed to Opposite Party No.2 (Photo copy).
	Office copy of Representation by the complainant Dt.23.10.2017 addressed to Opposite Party No.2 (Photo copy).
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 11.11.2017.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 13.12.2017.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 05.01.2018.
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt.13.03.2018 filed by the complainant.
	Photo copy of Interim Order of APSPDCL GRIEVANCES FORUM, Tirupati, Dt.08.05.2018 filed by the complainant.
	Original copy of Receipt issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 15.05.2018.
	Photo copy of Final Orders of GRIEVANCES FORUM Dt.24.07.2018 filed by the complainant.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 02.08.2018.
	Original copy of Vijaya Bank Counter Foils 2 in Number. Dt. 23.08.2018.
	Original copy of Postal Receipts 2 in Number for Rs.30/- each. Dt: 23.08.2018.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 04.09.2018.
	Original copy of Receipts (2) issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 19.09.2018.
	Original copy of Demand Notice issued by APSPDCL. Dt: 02.10.2018.
	Original copy of Receipts (2) issued by SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. Dt: 20.10.2018.
	Original copy of Further Bills 20 in Number along with paid receipts.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copy of Statement of Account issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, APSPDCL::Srikalahasti.

 

      

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-       

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.