BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
Between
Adapa Lakshmikantha Rao S/o late Venkata Rao
Chodavaram Village, Narasannapeta Mandal
Srikakulam District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Assistant Accounts Officer,
Electricity Revenue Office,
APEPDCL, Tekkali
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Operation, APEPDCL, Narasannapeta
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Operation
APEPDCL, Srikakulam
4. The Divisional Electrical Engineer,
APEPDCL, Tekkali
5. The Managing Director,
APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant Sri K.Uma Maheswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent Sri O.Manohar Reddy
QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
The complainant is the appellant. The facts leading to filing of appeal the complaint are that the appellant was released 10HP capacity service connection for his agriculture purpose whereas he had used the power supply for 5HP motor; As such the appellant had made a representation to the respondents to derate the load from 10 HP to 5 HP whereon the respondents recommended to issue clearance certificate to derate the load. The appellant paid all the dues on 3rd May,1994 consequently to which the respondent issued clearance certificate on the same date i.e., 3rd May,1994 and to the effect the respondents had made an entry in the pass book issued to the appellant derating the load from 10 HP to 5 HP with effect from 3rd May,1994. The appellant paid all the bills at the rate of Rs.115 per month for the subsequent months till the month of July,1993. The respondents issued notice dated 30th November,2002 claiming arrears of Rs.38,613/- stipulating for payment within a period of one month there from failing which the service connection of the appellant would be disconnected.
The respondent resisted the claim. The respondent no.2 filed counter and the other respondents adopted the counter filed by the respondent no.2. It was contended that to extend or derate the load the consumer has to apply to the assistant engineer concerned and on receiving no dues certificate from the Assistant Accounts Officer, the assistant engineer would inspect the service connection and submit his report to the Divisional Engineer and then the Divisional Engineer would sanction to extend or derate the load, as the case may be, and then inform the consumer to obtain a fresh LT agreement. In the case of the appellant, the respondent no.2, on receipt of the representation from the appellant, requested the respondent no.1 to issue the clearance certificate. The respondent no.1 had issued clearance certificate after collecting an amount of Rs.1, 694/- from the appellant. The respondent no,4 has not granted any sanction as there was no representation from the appellant to derate of the load. The respondent no.1 cannot alter the load of service in the ERO records without the sanction of the respondent no.4. As such the service in question was built with 10 HP in the records as per the tariff orders. The appellant has not paid the tariff charges till the month of October, 1996. The respondents issued notice during the year, 1989-99 claiming accumulated arrears of Rs.7, 752/- for the reason that the respondent no.4 has not granted sanction to derate the load. The respondents demanded for the arrears at the slab rate payable for 10HP motor. There was no irregularity or illegality in issuing the demand notice. The appellant is not a consumer until the arrears are paid to the respondents. Hence, requested for dismissal of the complaint.
The appellant has filed his affidavit to substantiate his case as also the documents which are not marked Exhibits for the reason not explained by the appellant.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum had not considered the documents placed on record particularly the document dated 3-05-1994 which is an intra departmental correspondence revealing that no arrears are left to be paid.
The points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is no sanction granted by the respondent no.4 for duration of the load to the service connection of the appellant?
ii) Whether the demand notice dated 5.7.2003 is bad and liable to be quashed?
iii) Whether the respondents committed deficient service to the appellant?
iv) To what relief?
POINTS NO.1 & 2: The respondents had sanctioned service connection bearing number 34 to the agricultural well of the appellant in the year 1994. Admittedly the sanctioned load to the service connection is 10HP. The appellant paid an amount of Rs.1, 694/on 3rd May,1994 to the respondent no.1 and submitted application to derate of the load from 10HP to 5 HP to the respondent no.2consequently to which the respondent issued clearance certificate on the same date i.e., 3rd May,1994 . An entry had been made in the pass book issued to the appellant derading the load from 10 HP to 5 HP with effect from 3rd May,1994. From these facts it is clear that the respondent no.2 acted on the representation of the appellant and deration the work load on the service connection of the appellant from 10 HP to 5 HP. The respondents deny any sanction on the ground that the respondent no.4 is the competent authority to sanction the duration of the load and the inner fold of their contention is that the appellant had not submitted any application to the respondent no.4 for duration of the load. To appreciate the facts in better manner, the paragraph of the counter filed by the respondent no.2 is reproduced hereunder:
As per the clause no.17 of terms and ocnditons of supply and as per departmental procedures any consumer desires to alteration to his service i.e., change of category or load extension or duration the consumer has to represent to the concerned Asst. Engineer/Operation and the A.E./Operation has asked for ‘ NO DUES’ certificate from the concerned AAO/ERO and in turn the Asst. Accounts Officer, Electricity Revenue Office issued clearance certificate ( ie.., no due certiaficate) if the consumer paid and clear all his dues upto date wherever may be the nature. After issuing the clearing certificate, the Asst. Engineer/Operation will inspect the service taken all particulars regarding motor load, make number etc., and proposal for additional load or deration of load submitted to the Divnl. Engineer Operation concerned (who si the sanctioning authority) through the concerned Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation. Then the D.E. will sanction the proposal duly observing the departmental procedure for additional procedures for additional or deration of load permit the consumer as he desired send it to the consumer through concerned Asst.Engineer, Operation and requested to obtain a fresh LT agreement and revised tetst report from consumer and send it to the Asst. Accounts, officer ERO for updating the sanctioned particulars and implementing the correct billing and collection of CC charges against the service as per the sanction given by D.E. concerned.
It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.4 who claims that only he is competent to grant sanction any duration of the load has not filed any counter. The respondent no.4 had adopted the counter filed by the respondent no.2. As per the contention of the respondent no.2 the appellant had submitted representation and acting upon that application the respondent no.2 has sought for. The respondent no.1 had issued clearance certificate after collecting an amount of Rs.1, 694/- from the appellant. The respondent no,4 has not granted any sanction as there was no representation from the appellant for the duration of the load.
The appellant paid all the dues on 3rd May,1994 consequently to which the respondent issued clearance certificate on the same date i.e., 3rd May,1994 and to the effect the respondents had made an entry in the pass book issued to the appellant deration the load from 10 HP to 5 HP with effect from 3rd May,1994. The appellant paid all the bills ate the rate of Rs.115 per month for the subsequent months till the month of July,1993. The respondents issued notice dated 30th November,2002 claiming arrears of Rs.32,613.98 stipulating for payment a period of one month there from failing which the service connection of the appellant was informed that the service connection would be disconnected if the amount was not paid within the stipulated period.
The respondents admitted the fact that the appellant had made a representation to the respondent no.2 who sought for the clearance certificate from the respondent no.1. The no due certificate dated 3.5.1994 was issued by the respondent no1 and transmitted to the respondent no.2. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 had taken steps to derate the load from 10HP to 5HP to the service connection that was sanctioned in favour of the appellant. The respondent having taken steps to derate the load in respect of the service connection of the appellant, had issued the notice with a demand for arrears as also a reminder in the month of November 2002. The respondents’ only contention is that the respondent no.4 only is the competent authority to sanction either to derate or extend of the load in respect of the service of the appellant, cannot be held sustainable in the absence of any evidence particularly the terms and conditions whereto the reference has been made in relation to the competence of the respondent no.4 to sanction to derate the load of the service connection.
It is not the case of the respondents where a charge against the appellant for theft, pilferage of energy is made nor it is their case that taking into consideration of the objection as to the competence of the respondent no.2 to sanction to derate the load the respondent no.4 or the respondent no.3 had not taken any action against the respondent no.2 to accord sanction for to derate the load to the service connection of the appellant. It is not disputed that the respondent no.2 had physically inspected the service connection as to the load sanctioned and the load being utilized by the appellant, it also not the case of the respondents that the respondent no.2 is not competent to take steps for according sanction to derate the load of the service connection. The respondent no.2 had sought for clearance certificate from the respondent no.1 and on receipt of the clearance certificate he had inspected the service connection of the appellant and thereafter had recommended to derate of the load from 10HP to 5HP which incidentally was found a mention in the passbook issued to the appellant. All these official acts by the respondents’ no.1 and 2 have not been disapproved or set aside by the respondent no.4. Viewed from any angle, the demand for the amount of arrears of Rs.32,613.98 is unjust, arbitrary as such not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part by setting aside the order dated 4.11.2004 passed by the District Forum. The notice dated 30.11.2002 issued for a sum of 32,613.98 is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.07.04.2010
KMK*
