BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 11th day of March, 2015
C.C.No.82/2012
Between:
P.Abdul Rahim
S/o.P.Badesaheb,
Aged about 74 Years,
R/o.H.No.78/11 A,
Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool Dist-518 002. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. Additional Assistant Engineer,
APCPDCL,
Plot No.15, Beside A.P. Seeds Corporation.
Industrial Estate, Kallur,
Kurnool District -518 002.
2. Assistant Accounts Officer (ERO-Town),
H.No.45/515,
APCPDCL, Opp.KVR College,
Kurnool-518 003. .…OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan Advocate for complainant and Sri.D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.82/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To cancel the electricity bill for Rs.14,876/- issued to the complainant and issue correct revised bill.
- To direct the opposite parties refund of Rs.150/- collected from the complainant towards meter challenging fee.
- To direct the opposite parties to a pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant cost of the complaint.
- To grant such any other order or orders that are deem to the fit and proper circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of the house bearing No.78-11A, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. The said house consisting of two rooms. The complainant submitted an application and required fee Rs.1225/- for new electricity connection to his house. The opposite parties provided electricity connection to his house on 10.07.2012 with HSC No.0401137715. There after the opposite parties issued first electricity consumption bill for payment of Rs.14,876/- from the period 10.07.2012 to 11.08.2012. As per the bill the opening balance is 50 and closing balance is 2209, the total units consumed was 2159. The complainant had given a written complaint on 16.08.2012 to rectify the defect and to issue a revised bill. On the request of complainant the opposite parties installed another meter on 25.08.2012. The complainant paid Rs.150/- to the opposite parties towards the meter challenging fee. Then the opposite parties tested the meter and declared that the meter is not working satisfactory. But the opposite parties did not issue revised bill and also threatened the complainant that the connection will be disconnected if he fails to pay the entire bill amount of Rs.14,876/-. The complainant living on his pension suffered mental agony due to negligent attitude of opposite parties. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Written Version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 stating that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no cause of action to file this complaint. It is admitted that the complainant is the consumer of opposite Parties Company with service connection No.04011337715 and the opposite parties issued electricity consumption Bill for payment Rs.14, 876/- to the complainant and the complainant made a complaint to opposite parties by requesting to issue revised bill. It is submitted that due to pressure of work the billing of consumption charges is allotted to private agencies by the opposite parties company. Due to lack of knowledge and software problem, the consumption charges bill for the month of July 2012 were came excessive at Kurnool town. The same was come to notice of opposite party when several customers complained. The opposite parties inspected the meters including the complainant, after noting the errors the opposite party company has replaced the defective meters with correct meters. The complainant connection is one among whose meter is tested and changed the meter and revised the bill. The opposite parties never threatened to the complainant there is neither negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of opposite parties filed Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Complainant filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii : Admittedly the complainant is the owner of the house bearing No.78-11A, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. The opposite parties provided Electricity connection to the complainant said house with H.S.C. No.0401137715. Admittedly the opposite parties issue first Electricity consumption bill for payment of Rs.14,876/- from the period of 10.07.2012 till 11.08.2012 it is marked Ex.A1. The complainant made a written complaint to opposite parties and requested to rectify the defect and issue revised bill which is marked as Ex.A2 dated 16.08.2012. The complainant paid Rs.150/- towards the meter challenging fees D.D bearing No.003247, dated 24.08.2012 SBI. The D.D sent to opposite party along with his letter, which is marked Ex.A3. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties tested, the meter and declared that the meter is not working satisfactory it is the marked as Ex.A7. The Acknowledgement of complaint with regard to meter is marked as Ex.A4 dated 25.08.2012. The opposite parties installed another meter on 25.082012. The opposite parties issued two bills in which the consumption units is below 80 and consumption charges are not more than Rs.200/-. After the installation of another meter, subsequently the consumption bills issued by opposite parties are marked as Ex.A5, Ex.A6 and Ex.A8 to Ex.A11. Ex.A7 is the report issued by APCPDCL, Kurnool in regard to defective meter.
8. According to opposite parties, due to lack of knowledge and software problem, the consumption bills for the month of July 2012 were issued excessive. After receipt of complaints from several customers, the opposite parties company had replaced the defective meter with correct meter, and revised the bills. The complainant connection is one among them. M.Venkatesh opposite party No.1 in his Sworn Affidavit stated that the complainant meter service No.137715 was tested. The test revealed that the meter is not satisfactory and there is an error of 14.89% in K.Wh., (Kilo what hour) in recording of consumption. A letter in regard to result of defective meter from Additional Assistant Engineer, Kurnool to Assistant Account Officer, Kurnool Dated 12.09.2012. Thus the complainant has to pay the bill after deduction of 14.89% - 348.72 error units from 2342 total consumption unit. It is marked as Ex.B1. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. The Learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that the opposite parties installed defective meter and issued bill for payment of Rs.14,786/- and further collected Rs.150/- towards, the meter challenging fee from the complainant is illegal. As per section 26 of electricity Act 1910 the consumer shall be billed for the period meter remained defective based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of the consumer for the six months prior to and six months after the period during which the meter remained defective. He relied on decisions in III (2007) CPJ page 104 Delhi, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi, where in it was held that the bill to be raised based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of consumer for six months prior to and six months after period, during which meter remained defective II (2007) CPJ page 94 (NC) the Honourable National Commission held that the bills to be raised based on actual meter reading available or on average basis.
10. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of excessive bill and installation of defective meter and after that the meter was replaced with another meter on 25.08.2012. After the Installation of another meter. The electricity consumption bill is below 80 units and not more than Rs.200/-. As seen from Ex.A7 and Ex.B1 it is clear that the said meter is working not satisfactory it was defective meter. It is not a case of opposite parties that there is consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load, under section-126 of Electricity Act in III (2004) CPJ Page 458 Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Somadutta Mohapatra -Vs- Chief Executive Officer CESCO of Orrissa Limited and others. Where in it was held No theft, tampering proved complainant no way responsible for the loss of energy which occurred due to technical fault. Penal bill arbitrary quashed. In the present case on hand also. The said meter HSC No.0401137715 was installed on 10.07.2012 the opposite parties issued first consumption bill for a period of 10.07.2012 to 11.08.2012 for payment of Rs.14,786/- is arbitrary and excessive. We consider all the material available on record and in the light of above decisions we found deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and cause mental agony to the complainant. Basing on the facts and circumstance of the case we direct the opposite parties to withdraw or cancel the bill dated 13.08.2012 for the payment of Rs.14,786/- and issued correct revised bill to be based on estimated energy consumption by taking consumption pattern of consumer for six months after another meter is installed on 25.08.2012 and further direct to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to cancel the electricity bill dated 13.08.2012 for an amount of Rs.14,786/- and issued correct revise bill on average basis and further direct to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of APCPDCL bill date 11.08.2012.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Complainant date 16.08.2012.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Letter complainant along with D.D. for Rs.150/- date 22.08.2012
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Acknowledgement of opposite party date 25.08.2012.
Ex.A5 Photo copy of Bill date 11.08.2012.
Ex.A6 Photo copy of Bill date 03.09.2012.
Ex.A7 Photo copy of APCPDC Meter Testing Report date 07.09.2012
Ex.A8 Photo copy of Bill date 01.10.2012.
Ex.A9 Photo copy of Bill date 05.11.2012.
Ex.A10 Photo copy of Bill date 04.12.2012.
Ex.A11 Photo copy of Bill date 04.01.2013.
Ex.A12 Photo copy of Meter Installation Record Register of HSC No.0401137715.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Letter dated 12.09.2012 from Additional Assistant Engineer Distribution Industrial Estate Section APCPDCL, Kurnool to Assistant Account Officer, ERO/TOWN, Kurnool.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
