BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER ROTECTION 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. 14 of 2009
Between:
A. Laxmaiah S/o Kuchaiah, aged about 90 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 5-8-456, Kalvakunta Road,
Shanthinagar, Sangareddy.
.... 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 ConsumerProtection Act, 1986 to issue suitable orders to the opposite partiesot tocollect Rs.23,650/-he amount of bill dated 27.01.2009 and to award compensation of Rs.75,000as the complainant suffered mental agony due to negligence and deficiencyin service of the opposite parties.
2
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant has agricultural service connection No. 29 under category -VC from the year 1978. After installation of the service connection the opposite parties issued bills and the complainant paid the monthly bills at Rs.18/- from year 1978 to 2007. In the year 2007 the opposite parties fixed meter and converted the service connection from agriculture to commercial and issued bills under category – II. Challenging the said conversion the complainant filed a complaint before Lok Adalath at Mint Compound, Hyderabad for settlement of conversion issue. The opposite parties have not taken any steps for settlement of the issue but issued the following bills
Sl.No Bill No. Date Amount
1. 66202 20.08.2007 Rs. 215/-
2. 66278 10.09.2007 Rs. 328/-
3. 221336 26.10.2007 Rs. 276/-
4. 221416 19.11.2007 Rs. 93/-
The above bills are issued under Tatkal and the complainant paid the bills under protest . The Opposite parties without any reason and valid record again issued letter No. AAE/OP/SNG T-II/F.No. 20/08 D.No. 838/09, dated 27.01.2009, to the complainant demanding him to pay arrears amount of Rs.23,650/- 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 bills issued by the opposite parties are false and baseless. Due to their negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant suffered
3
heavy loss, mental torture and irreparable injury. The false letter dated 27.01.2009 for payment of Rs,.23,650/- was received by complainant on 28.01.2009 where in the complainant was directed to the pay the bill amount on 28.01.2009 itself i.e. on the same day without any further notice the said letter clearly shows bad intention and attitude of the opposite parties. The said letter is null and void and not binding on the complainant. Hence the complaint, to direct the opposite parties not to collect the bill amount of Rs.23,650/- and to award 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. 29 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/- includes arrears of CC bills and the current month bill i.e. 01/2009. The bills was issued by the opposite parties during 01.10.2007 and 01.12.2007 under commercial category and the complainant paid the bills knowingly, 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
4
category because he was using the service for nursery in urban area. Use of power 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 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.
Most of the averments in the counter are mutatis mutandis as mentioned in the counter in C.C. No. 12/2009. Care is not taken to make suitable corrections to suit to the facts of 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 A6 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 him 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 of A.P. passed in W.P. No. 7396/1996 referred in the complaint and relied upon by the complainant(2002-A.L.D.-6-601) and after
5
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 plants. Even though the entire complaint gives such a meaning, in the last paragraph it is mentioned that the complainant suffered mental agony and 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 1978 he has agricultural service connection and as he has been using it for raising nursery the opposite parties converted the service from agricultural to commercial purpose and issued bill for heavy amount 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. Exs. A1 is bill card for electricity charges, Exs. A2 to A5 are receipts for payment of C.C. charges and Ex. A6 is letter to the complainant for payment of Rs. 23,650/-.
10. Ex. B1 is copy of Ex. A6, Exs. 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 he was using electric power supply given to his agricultural service connection for raising nursery to sell plants, without notice to him and without even giving opportunity of being heard, all of a sudden, the opposite parties converted his service connection from “agricultural category” to “commercial category” and charging more, which is bad in law in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble
6
High Court in the case of Mahammed Ziaul Hussain Vs APSEB, Hyderabd reported in 2002-ALD-6-601. Paragraph 8 in the said decision is 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 of the Hon’ble High court referred above, 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. A6 for payment of Rs. 23,650/- 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. 23,650/- under Ex. A6 letter under commercial 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
7
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
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy
