BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY .
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Friday, the 18th day of September, 2009
CC.No. 13 of 2009
Between:
Smt. D. Ananthamma W/o Shivaiah, aged about 60 years,
R/o H.No. 4-2-134, Rajampet, Sangareddy,
Medak District.
….. Complainant
And
1. Addl. Assistant Engineer, OP/APCPDCL/
Sangareddy-II, Medak District.
2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer, OP/APCPDCL/
Sangareddy-II, Medak District.
3 The Divisional Engineer, OP/APCPDCL/
Sangareddy – II, Medak District.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 08.09.2009 in the presence Sri. Ch. Nagender, advocate for complainant and Sri. B.A. Srinivasa Reddy, advocate for opposite parties No. 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to issue suitable orders to the opposite parties not to and to award collect Rs.20,077/-,the amount of the bill dt. 27.01.2009 and to award compensation of Rs.75,000/-, as the complainant suffered mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
2
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant has agricultural service connection No. 4717 under category -VC from the year 1982. The bill issued on 07-09-1990 for the months of June, July and August 1990 is for Rs.57/-. The complainant paid monthly bills @ Rs. 18/- from July, 1981 to 1990 as per pass book entries. Earlier bills are also same. From the year 2007 onwards the opposite parties converted the above service from agricultural to commercial and issued bills under category –II .
Challenging the said conversion the complainant submitted a complaint before Lok Adalath at Mint compound, Hyderabad for settlement of the conversion issue. The opposite parties have not taken any steps for settlement of the issue and without any reason they issued letter No. AAE/OP/SNG T-II/F.No. 20/08 D.No. 839/09, dated 27.01.2009, to the complainant demanding him to pay arrears amount of Rs.20,077/- on 28.01.2009 and stated that if the amount is not paid the service will be disconnected. In a similar case the Hon’ble High Court passed an order in W.P. No. 7396/1996 stating as follows: “categorization of the petitioner service connection in respect of plants land as Category-II-Commercial has no basis and the respondents are directed to categorize the petitioner service connection as Category-V Agriculture and to issue revised bill in Category-V and adjust the amount which are already paid and the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the excess amount paid in view of the billing under Category-II. The respondents are directed to refund the same with in a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of the High Court order."
2. The notice issued by the opposite parties is false and baseless. Due to their negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental torture and she could not attend to her daily normal duties and she sustained irreparable injury. The letter dated. 27.01.2009 was received by the complainant on 28.01.2009 cautioning there in to pay the bill amount on the same day which clearly shows their bad intention, therefore the said letter is null and void and not binding on the complainant. Hence the
3
complaint, to direct the opposite parties not to collect the bill amount of Rs.20,077/- and to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/-.
3. The opposite parties resisted the claim by filing counter of opposite party No. 1 which is adopted by opposite parties No. 2 and 3 under a memo. The counter is to the following effect:
The allegation that the complainant is a consumer for Agricultural service connection No. 4717 category –V released in year 1996 is not in dispute. As on 10/2005 there was no meter. The complainant paid the electricity bills as per fixed quota under category –V. Nurseries are treated as commercial category in pursuance of memo dated 05.01.2007 issued by the Chief General Manager / Commercial & RAC on behalf of Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited.
4 It is true that the complainant filed a complaint before Lok Adalath at Mint compound at Hyderabad for settlement of above issue and the Lok Adalath has given an order that the matter has to be considered and decided by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) and hence the matters are referred to APERC to examine and pass appropriate orders.
5 The opposite parties are issuing C.C. bills regularly to the complainant every month under commercial category. The bill dated 27.01.2009 for Rs.38,452/-(not correct) includes arrears of CC bills and the current month bill i.e. 01/2009 and it was issued under commercial category. The complainant paid the bill amounts knowingly that they were issued under commercial category, therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The service connection of the complainant was converted from agricultural category to commercial category because she was using the service for nursery in urban area. Use of electric energy for nursery in rural area only has to be treated as agricultural but in urban areas it has to be treated as commercial purpose in view of the memo of CPDC of A.P. limited dated 05.01.2007 issued by Chief General Manager / Commercial & RAC. Supply of power to the service of the
4
complainant is not stopped. A.P. Transco Lok Adalath opined in its order dated 11.04.2008 that the matter has to be considered and decided by Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) and referred the matters to it, to examine and pass appropriate orders. APERC has not yet passed any order. The complaint may therefore be dismissed.
The counter is a copy of the counter prepared in C.C. No. 12/2009. Except making a correction in the counter regarding the service connection number, no other corrections are made to make it a counter to meet to the contentions raised in the complaint in this case
6. In order to prove the contentions of both parties raised in their respective pleadings, evidence affidavit of the complainant and that of opposite party No. 1 are filed. Exs. A1 to A3 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs. B1 to B4 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Complainant’s advocate filed a memo to treat the complaint and evidence affidavit of the complainant as written arguments. On behalf of opposite parties no written arguments filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard. Perused the record.
7. The point for consideration is whether “nursery” falls under the category of “agricultural” or “commercial purpose” and whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed by her in the complaint?
Point:
At the out set it is to be stated that a reading of the complaint shows that the complainant’s agricultural service connection was converted by the opposite parties to “commercial” and issued C.C. bill for heavy amount. The complaint is silent as to for what reasons the conversion was made by the opposite parties. But after going through the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court passed in W.P. No. 7396/1996 referred in the complaint and relied upon by the complainant and after going through the counter of the opposite parties, it is understood that the opposite parties converted the service of the complainant from agricultural to commercial on the ground that the complainant has been using the energy for raising nursery to sell
5
plants. Even though the entire complaint gives such a meaning, in the last paragraph to is mentioned that the complainant suffered mental agony and mental torture for non supply of gas in time which is not at all concerned in this case. The complaint is not properly drafted.
8. The case of the complainant is that from the year 1982 she has agricultural service connection and as she has been using it for raising nursery the opposite parties converted the service from agricultural to commercial purpose and issued heavy bill on the ground that nursery in rural areas only has to be treated as agricultural but in urban areas it has to be treated has a commercial activity. According to the opposite parties as the complainant has been using the energy through her service connection for raising nursery for sale of plants and because it is located in Sangareddy, an urban area, it is converted as commercial and hence the opposite parties have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service.
9. Ex. A1 is letter dated. 27.01.2009 from the opposite parties to the complainant demanding her to pay Electricity arrears of Rs. 20,077/- on or before 28.01.2009 failing which the service will be disconnected on 28.01.2009 at 4:00 p.m. without any further notice, Ex. A2 is slab pass book for electricity charges and Ex. A3 is Xerox copy of a public notice issued by
Chairman and Managing Director of Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited.
10. Ex. B1 is same copy of Ex. A1, Ex. B2 is memo issued by CPDC of A.P. Limited to charge entire nurseries under Commercial Category. Ex. B3 is letter of CPDC of A.P. Limited to The A.P. Legal Service Authority. Ex. B4 is common order of A.P. Transco Lok Adalath.
11. In gist the complainant’s case is that when she was using electric power supply given to her agricultural service connection for raising nursery to sell plants, without notice to her and without even giving opportunity of being heard, all of a sudden, the opposite parties converted her service connection from agricultural category to commercial category
6
and charging more, which is bad in law in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. passed in W.P. No. 7396/1996 (Mohammed Ziaul Hussain Vs A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad - 2002-ALD-6-601). According to the complainant paragraph 8 of the above said judgment clearly states that use of electric power given to agricultural service for raising nursery cannot be treated as commercial purpose. Paragraph 8 reads as follows: “In view of the above propositions laid down in the above decisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is using service connection for the purpose of selling the plants and as such, is liable to be charged under category-II Commercial, has no force. It is evident that the agricultural connection is being used for growing the plants and the electricity Board is in no way concerned as to whether the plants are being sold or otherwise used. It is within the province of the petitioner to deal with the produce of the plants. Hence, categorization of the petitioner’s service connection in respect of ‘plants Land’ as Category-II- Commercial has no basis and the respondents are directed to categories the petitioner’s service connection as Category-V-Agriculture and to issue revised bill in Category-V and adjust the amounts which are already paid and the petitioner is entitled for the refund of the excess amount paid in view of the billing under Category-II. The respondents are directed to refund the same within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.”
12. Even otherwise, the opposite parties cannot resort to convert the service of the complainant from agricultural category to commercial category because their own case is that in pursuance of Ex. B4 the matter is under consideration before the APERC.
13. For the fore going reasons it is held that nursery falls under agricultural category-V and cannot be treated as commercial category in view of the decision 2002-ALD-6-601 which is binding on this forum, because no other authority is shown by the opposite parties contrary to it. It follows that the demand made and under Ex. A1 for payment of Rs. 20,077/- is not in accordance with law. As the opposite parties acted in pursuance of Ex. B4, negligence cannot be attributed; however their action amounts to deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, declaring that demand for payment of Rs. 20,077/- under Ex. A1 bill under commercial
7
category is not in accordance with law and hence this forum directs the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill to the complainant within one month under agricultural category-V and collect dues from the complainant if any. If already the opposite parties collected any amount in excess, by treating the service under commercial category, such excess amount shall be repaid to the complainant within one month. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2000/- towards compensation and costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 18th day of September, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witness examined
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the complainant : For the opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt.27.01.2009 - letter | Ex. B1/dt. Copy of Ex.A1 |
Ex.A2/dt. - slab pass book for electricity charges | Ex.B2/dt. Xerox copy of memo issued by the APCPDCL. |
Ex.A3/dt. Xerox copy of a public notice issued by Chairman and Managing Director of Northern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited. | Ex.B3/dt. Xerox copy of letter of CPDC of A.P. Limited to The A.P. Legal Service Authority |
| Ex.B4/dt. Common order of A.P. Transco Lok Adalath. |
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties copy delivered to the Complainant/
3) Spare copy Opp.Parties On ___________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
