Date of Filing: 25-10-2012
Date of Disposal: 08-09-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Monday, the 8th day of September, 2014
C.C.NO.67/2012
Between:
Meda Venugopala Gupta
S/o M.Thimmappa
President, Samachara Hakku
Sadhana Sangham &
The Editor, Durga Jyothi Newspaper,
9-2-214, Lakshmi Bazaar,
Rayadurg (Town & Post),
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainants
Vs.
A.P.S.P.D.C.L. rep. by
- The Superintending Engineer,
APSPDCL, Ananthapuramu.
- The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
APSPDCL, Rayadurg.
- The Assistant Engineer,
APSPDCL, Rayadrug. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Chenna Reddy, Advocate for the complainant and Sri D.Sreedhar, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case are that :- The complainant herein is the permanent resident of D.No.9-2-214-1-1A, Lakshmi Bazaar, Rayadurg Town & Post, Ananthapuramu District . The complainant is the President of Samachara Hakku Sadhana Sangham & The Editor, Durgajyothi Newspaper, Rayadurg. The complainant is the owner of houses bearing D.No.9-2-214 & 9-2-214-1-1A, Lakshmi Bazar, Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu and having electricity service connection No.R023012057 for D.No.9-2-214 & HSC No.R023006134 for house D.No.9-2-214-1-1A.
3. The complainant was paying electricity bills regularly before the due date. At no point of time, the electricity bill did not cross Rs.500/- per month. While so, the bill dt.05-07-2012 issued by the opposite parties for a sum of Rs.1878/-. Surprised to see such a huge amount bill, the complainant wrote a letter on 07-07-2012 to the opposite parties. On 27-07-2012 the Additional Assistant Engineer Operation, APSPDCL, Rayadurg gave a reply stating that the complainant’s bill amount was revised and asked to pay Rs.1104/- within 3 days. Then the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party who stated that the said amount will be included in the next month bill and asked to pay the bill within the stipulated due date on 08-08-2012. On 08-08-2012 the revised bill along-with bill for the said month was issued and as per the bill due date was 22-08-2012. The complainant paid the said bill on 17-08-2012 through Eeseva at 10.43 A.M. Subsequently the complainant paid bill amount for HSC No.R023012057 on 17-08-2012 much before due date. The opposite parties have disconnected the service connection on 11-08-2012 though due date was 22-08-2012. Then the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party personally and asked to restore service connection as he has got time to pay that bill amount. Then the opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant on 16-08-2012 stating that even after disconnection of HSC No.1104 the complainant has not paid due amount and threatening to disconnect other services HSC No.R0230006134 which belongs to the complainant. Though the complainant paid bill amount on 17-08-2012 at 10.43 A.M. the officials of the opposite party came to the house of the complainant and disconnected HSC No.R023006134 on 17-08-2012 at 7.15 P.M.
4. The opposite party officials acted with revenge in order to threaten and also to bend the complainant as he made an application on 26-03-2012 seeking some specific information under Right to Information Act has disconnected the said service connection though there is no fault on the part of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency of service. As there was no response for the said application, the complainant made an appeal to the Appellate Officer under Right to Information Act for that also the complainant did not get any reply and he made second appeal and the A.P. Information Commissioner directed the complainant and opposite parties to appear before it on 09-07-2012. After receiving the said notice in order to harass and threaten the complainant, the opposite party officials got issued July month bill with exorbitant charges. The opposite party officials spoke indecently and disconnected the service connection, which caused mental agony to the complainant for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation as claimed for.
5. Counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.3 and memo filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 adopting the counter of opposite party No.3.
6. The opposite party No.3 filed counter alleging that the complaint is false and invented to claim compensation from the opposite parties. The opposite party submits that the complainant is a house owner bearing D.No.9-2-214 and he has two service connections bearing Nos.R023006134 is a commercial connection and service No.R023012057 is a domestic service connection respectively. The said commercial service connection is given to the first room of the complainant in which he is running a medical shop. The opposite party submits that the complainant is paying bills regularly within the due date. A Bill for month of July, 2012 was issued for consumption of 391 units and the actual meter reading was 7861. The complainant has consumed 219 units in the month of July, 2010 and 231 units in the month of December, 2008, 267 units in the month of June, 2008 and 197 units in the month of April, 2011 and as per prevailing tariff, the bill for Rs.1878/- was issued to the complainant basing on the consumption of 391 units. Basing on the complaint by the complainant the premises was inspected and check reading of 7959 was taken by the Assistant Engineer on 26-07-2012 and the bill issued was correct as per the reading. The opposite party No.3 submits that on the personal request of the complainant, the bill was revised and issued for Rs.1104/- for the same units duly adjusting the slabs though the bill was revised the complainant has not paid the same inspite of issuing a letter on 07-07-2012 and hence the service was disconnected on 11-08-2012. Further opposite party submits that the complainant was utilizing the supply from the other service connection existing in his premises bearing No.R023006134 and hence another notice was given on 16-08-2012 informing him if the amount is not paid the other live service will also be disconnected as per the terms and conditions of APSPDCL. Even then the complainant has not paid the current bill, hence other service was also disconnected as there was no response from the complainant.
7. The opposite party submits that the complainant has to pay bill amount on 21-07-2012 but he paid the bill only on 17-08-2012 after the other live service was also disconnected. Hence the contention of the consumer stating that the service was disconnected even after the payment is made is incorrect. Further the opposite party submits that after careful verification of the records in Electricity Revenue Office, it was observed that no payment for HSC No.R023012057 was received and hence the other live service of the complainant was also disconnected by the field staff. The opposite party submits that the bill was issued to the complainant on 05-07-2012 and the said bills are payable within 15 days from the date of issue, but the complainant has not paid the bill amount within the stipulated date. The opposite party submits that the complainant has stated that he has requested for some specific information under Right to Information Act on 26-03-2010 and the present Additional Assistant Engineer and Assistant Divisional Engineer and Divisional Engineer were not there at that time. Request for specific information by the complainant and the question of taking vengeance does not arise. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the amount claimed by the complainant is highly exorbitant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 to 3 ?
2. To what relief?
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A8 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties, opposite party No.3 filed evidence on affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties and marked Ex.B1 to B4 documents.
10. Heard on both sides.
11 POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a President of Samachara Hakku Sadhana Sangham & The Editor, Durgajyothi Newspaper, Rayadurg and he is the owner of the houses bearing D.Nos.9-2-214 & 9-2-214-1-1A, Lakshmi Bazaar, Rayadurg, Ananthapuramu District and he has two electricity connections to his house. HSC No.R023012057 for D.No.9-2-214 & HSC No.R023006134 for D.No.9-2-214-1-1A. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was paying electricity charges regularly before the due date and at no point of time the electricity bill crossed Rs.500/- per month. While so, bill dt.05-07-2012 issued by the opposite parties for Rs.1878/-. Surprised to see the bill he wrote a letter on 07-07-2012 for which the Additional Assistant Engineer operation, APSPDCL, Rayadurg gave a reply on 27-07-2012 stating that the complainant’s bill amount was revised and asked to pay Rs.1104/- within 3 days. Then the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested for revised bill. The opposite party No.3 stated that the said amount will be included in the next month bill and asked to pay the bill within stipulated due date. Subsequently on 08-08-2012 a revised bill along-with bill for the said month was issued and the due date was 22-08-2012. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 17-08-2012 the complainant paid the bill amount in e-seva center at about 10.43 A.M. The counsel for the complainant submitted that even prior to the payment of bill for HSC No.R023012057 the connection for the said service was disconnected by the opposite parties on 11-08-2012 without any reason. Subsequently the complainant approached the opposite parties personally and asked to restore the service connection as he has got time to pay the bill for which the opposite party wrote a letter dt.16-08-2012 stating that even after disconnection of HSC No.1104 Rayadurg the complainant has not paid due amount and threatening to disconnect other services No.R023006134 belonging to the complainant. Though the complainant paid bill amount on 17-08-2012 at about 10.43 A.M. the officials of opposite party came to the house of the complainant and disconnected the Service Connection No.R023006134 on 17-08-2012 at 7.15 P.M.
12. The counsel for the complainant argued that even though there is no fault on the part of the complainant, the opposite party has disconnected the service connection which amounts to deficiency of service. And further argued that the complainant has paid the amount within stipulated date and there is no reason to disconnect the service connection of the complainant. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has made an application seeking some specific information under Right to Information Act on 26-03-2012. As there was no response for the said application, the complainant made an appeal to the Appellate Officer under Right to Information Act. Even for that also the complainant did not receive any reply. Then he made a second appeal for which A.P.Information Commission, who directed the complainant and the opposite parties to appear before it on 09-07-2012 and it is after receiving this notice in order to harass and threaten the complainant, the opposite party officials issued July month bill with exorbitant charges. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant never used electricity for more than Rs.500/- at any point of time previously. The counsel for the complainant argued that in order to harass and threaten the complainant the opposite party officials issued the said bill and on his request the said bill was revised to Rs.1104/- from Rs.1878/- and this shows that they have wantonly issued the bill for Rs.1878/- with revengeful attitude. The counsel for the complainant argued that the reason for issuing such a huge bill and revising the bill at the request of the complainant by the opposite parties shows that they are not fair and the bills are prepared at the whims and fancies of the opposite parties, which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service to the complainant by harassing him with disconnection of his service. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation as claimed by the complainant.
13. The counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 submitted that it is true that the complainant had two service connections bearing Nos.R023006134 is a commercial connection and R023012057 is a domestic connection. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant is running a medical shop in the front room of his house and the commercial connection is taken to that medical shop and domestic connection is taken to the house adjacent to the medical shop. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that it is true that the bill was issued for Rs.1878/- in the month of July, 2012 for the service connection No. R023012057. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that basing on a complaint by the complainant, the Assistant Engineer inspected the premises and meter reading was 7959 as on 26-07-2012 and as per the bill issued the meter reading was 7861 as on the date of bill and there was no discrepancy. Further the counsel submitted that basing on the personal request by the complainant, the bill was revised and issued for Rs.1104/- for the same units duly adjusting slabs. Even then the complainant has not paid the same. Hence the service connection was disconnected on 11-08-2012. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant was utilizing the power supply from the other service existing in the premises under Service No.R023006134. Hence another notice was given to the complainant on 16-08-2012 informing him if the amount is not paid the other live service will also be disconnected as per the terms and conditions of APSPDCL. Even for that the complainant has not paid current charges, hence the other service was also disconnected.
14. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant has to pay bill amount on 21-07-2012, but the complainant made the payment only on 17-08-2012 after the other live service was also disconnected. Hence the contention of the complainant stating that the service was disconnected even after the payment made is incorrect. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that after careful verification of the records in Electricity Revenue Office it was observed that no payment was made for HSC.No.R023012057. Hence other live service of the complainant was also disconnected. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that bill was issued to the complainant on 05-07-2012 and he is supposed to pay the bill within 15 days from the date of issue, but the complainant did not pay the bill within stipulated date. Hence his service was disconnected as per the rules and regulations of the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as claimed by the complainant. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant has consumed 219 units in the month of July, 2010, 231 units in the month of December, 2008, 267 units in the month of June, 2008 and 197 units in the month of April, 2011 and consuming of 391 units in the month of July, 2012 is not very much high as claimed by the complainant. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that the meters are fixed at the premises of the complainant and meter readings are taken by a private agency, which will be cross checked by the Departmental staff. Hence there is no willful excessive billing on the part of the opposite parties. Further the counsel for the opposite parties argued that as contended by the complainant, there is no revengeful attitude by the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
15. After hearing arguments of both sides and perusing the documents, there is no dispute with regard to HSC No. allotted to the complainant. Further it is an admitted fact that the opposite parties have issued bill for Rs.1878/- to the complainant on 05-07-2012 which is marked as Ex.A1 to the service connection No.R023012057, which is a domestic service connection. As seen from the documents, it is very clear that the complainant was paying the bills regularly within the stipulated period. Even as per Ex.B2 which is check reading of the opposite parties, which clearly shows that consumption of the power per month was below 200 units. It is only for the month of July 202, the meter reading shows that the complainant has consumed 391 units for the said month. After a request from the complainant, the opposite parties have revised the bill from Rs.1878 to Rs.1104/-, which is marked as Ex.B1. As argued by the complainant’s counsel there is no necessity for the opposite parties to revise the bill to Rs.1104/-from Rs.1878/- if there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. For this there is no proper explanation by the opposite parties side. Simply they have revised the bill basing on the request made by the complainant. Further the contention that the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.1878/- for the month of June was revengeful act of the opposite parties as the complainant has made a request to furnish certain information under Right to Information Act. Even for the said cause, there is no reply from the opposite parties. The contention of the opposite parties is that after issuing a bill for Rs.1878/- on the request of the complainant, they have given a revised bill for Rs.1104/- and requested to pay it within 3 days and this letter is dated 27-07-2012. Subsequently, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1610/- and Rs.75/- towards reconnection charges through e-seva on 17-08-2012, which is marked as Ex.A7. But as seen from the documents, it is very clear that the opposite parties have disconnected the power supply on 11-08-2012 itself. Again the opposite parties have addressed a letter to the complainant stating that HSC No.1104 is disconnected as the complainant has failed to pay the amount and using power from other service No.6134 the said live connection also will be disconnected if the amount is not paid on or before 17-08-2012, which is marked as Ex.A5. In this letter, there is discrepancy as the complainant’s house connections are R023012057, which is a domestic connection and No.R023006134, which is a commercial connection, but whereas the opposite parties have mentioned that even after disconnection of HSC No.1104, the complainant did not pay and using the power from HSC No. R023006134. As seen from the documents, HSC No.1104 is not at all a service connection No. of the complainant. Further it is the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties have disconnected the other live power supply even after paying bill on 17-08-2012 and the contention of the complainant is that the staff of the opposite parties have behaved indecent manner and high-handedly disconnected the power supply on 17-08-2012 at about 7.15 P.M. In the above circumstances, the arguments of the opposite parties cannot be considered as they have not given proper explanation as what is the reason for revision of the bill of the complainant and there is no proper explanation why they have disconnected the other service connection even though the complainant has shown the e-seva bill that he has paid on 17-08-2012 itself. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite parties have acted with vengeance towards the complainant for the reasons best known to them. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service to the complainant. But however the claim made by the complainant is highly excessive.
16. POINT NO. 2 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of this order failing which interest shall be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 8th of September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
-NIL- -NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original electricity bill for HSC No.R023012057 dt.09-02-2014 issued by the
opposite parties.
Ex.A2 - Office copy of legal notice dt.14-08-2012 got issued by the complainant
to the opposite parties 1 to 3.
Ex.A3 - Letter dt.07-07-2012 addressed by the complainant to 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Original Bill dt.09-02-2014 for HSC No.R023012057 issued to the
complainant by the opposite parties.
Ex.A5 - Letter dt.16-08-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.A6 – Original Bill dt.09-02-2014 for HSC No.R023006134 issued to the
Complainant by the opposite parties.
Ex.A7 – Original receipt dt.17-08-2012 issued by e-seva for payment of bill.
Ex.A8 - Photo copy of letter dt.26-03-2010 sent by the complainant to the
Information Officer, Assistant Divisional Engineer Office, Rayadurg.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Letter dt.27-07-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B2 – Letter dt.27-07-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the Assistant
Accounts Officer, ERO, Rayadrug.
Ex.B3 - Letter dt.26-07-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
Ex.B4 - Letter dt.16-08-2012 sent by the 2nd opposite parties to the complainant.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
