Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/476/2010

Kanchuboyina apparao - Complainant(s)

Versus

APEPDCL - Opp.Party(s)

YRS Prakash Rao

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                             Registration of the Complaint:30-12-2010

                                                                              Date of Order:25-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II:AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.N. RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

 

WEDNESDAY, 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

        CONSUMER CASE NO.476/2010

 

BETWEEN:

1.SRI KANCHUBOYINA APPA RAO S/O LATE SIMHACHALAM,

HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.6-45-15, NEAR PADMAVATHI NURSING HOME, TAGARAPUVALASA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

2.KANCHUBOYINA NARASAYYAMMA W/O LATE APPA RAO,

HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, REST –DO-

3.KANCHUBOYINA VENAKTA RAO S/O LATE APPA RAO,

HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS, REST –DO-

4.KANCHUBOYINA SURESH, S/O LATE APPA RAO, HINDU,

AGED 30 YEARS, REST –DO-

                                                                                            …COMPLAINANTS

A N D:        

1.THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, AP TRANSCO (OPERATION)

A.P.E.P.D.C.L.,  CHITTIVALASA VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

2.THE DIVISIONAL CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,

AP TRANSCO (DISTRIBUTION) APEPDCL., CORPORATE OFFICE,

GURUDWAR JUNCTION, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-13

 

          …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

This case coming on 16-02-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of SRI Y.R.S.PRAKASHA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant and of SRI K.S.SHANKAR, Advocate for the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

 

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)

1.This complaint is filed by the complainants against the Opposite Parties directing them not to demand payment of amount of Rs.22,181/- covered under the Bill No.01701 6635 dated 11-07-2010, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2.The case of the complainants in brief is that the 1^st complainant is the son of Kanchuboyina Simhachalam on whose name an Electricity Service Connection No.C008/3269 was allotted to the house bearing D.No.6-45-15 Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam and since the date of allotment, the electricity consumption charges were paid by the complainants father regularly without any default and the service connection stands in the name of K.Simhachalam and the complainant paid the bill for the month of June, 2010 for Rs.255/- for the total units of 104  i.e., from the period from 11-05-2010 to 11-06-2010 and the previous reading was shown as 324 as on 11-05-2010 and the present reading as on 11-06-2010 is shown as 428. Thereafter the complainant had received abnormal bill for the month of July 2010 for an amount of Rs.22,181/- for total units of 4104 for the period from 11-06-2010 to 11-07-2010. The previous reading was 428 and present reading as on 11-7-2010 was 4532. Immediately, he approached the OP-1 and questioned about the abnormal delay for which the 1^st OP visited the house of the complainant and inspected the meter and informed the complainant that the meter is not working properly and advised the complainant to change the meter and that if he has got any doubt of functioning of the meter, he may pay Rs.100/- by way of DD for testing the meter in his presence.

3.That the complainant paid for Rs.100/- by way of D.D. then the officials after changing the meter took the old meter for testing in the presence of the complainant and fixed a new meter change slip No.125569 dated 14-07-2010  with final reading of the meter as 4542 and requested the complainant to pay the entire amount of Rs.22,181/- and removed the old meter and was sent on 16-07-2010 for MRT testing in his presence and thereby it was tested by MRT Wing and on the same day, gave test reports as arrears within the limits and a copy of its report also served to him and he signed thereon but the complainant has not accepted the said report, hence this complaint.

4.The case of the Opposite Party denying the material averments of the complaint is that on 11-08-2010, the complainant filed the complaint before the Consumer Grievance (Received CC Bill) issued for abnormal amount during the month 7/2010 to the Domestic Service Connection No.3269 and prayed for rectification of the abnormal delay was registered as C.G.No.155/11 and the same has been served to the concerned Engineer basing on the notice, the OP officials filed written submissions stating that the excess CC bill to the S.C.No.008/3269 verified with the consumer premises and found that the complainant is utilizing the total connected load of 1505volts including 0.5HP  wet grinder as the consumer of K.Venkata Rao was having suspicion about the working condition of the energy meter and the complaint was informed that he can challenge the functioning of the meter by paying challenge DD for Rs.100/- with the OPs. After receipt of payment of Rs.100/- for meter testing by the complainant, the meter was replaced vide C/s No.125569 dated 14-07-2010 that the final reading of the meter as 4542 and removed meter was sent to MRT for testing on 16-07-2010 in the presence of the complainant and gave test report as arrears within the limits and the test report has also served to the complainant and he signed thereon. Therefore, the complainant is bound to pay the entire amount to them without any delay. Further, the complaint failed to approach higher Forum and file the present complaint without any deficiency of service on their part.

5.To prove the case on behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and  got marked Exhibits A1 to A7 and on other hand, on behalf of the OPs, they filed their affidavits and got market Exhibits B1 to B4.

6.Exhibit A1 is the Death Certificate of K.Simhachalam dated 03-03-2010, Exhibit A2 is the Bill issued by OPs for Rs.255/- dated 11-06-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Bill issued by OPs for Rs.22,181/- dated 11-07-2010, Exhibit A4 is the Meter Change Slip dated 14-07-2010, Exhibit A5 is the Order passed by Consumer Grievances Reddressal Forum dated 05-10-2010, Exhibit A6 is the Bill issued by the OPs for Rs.20,535/- dated 12-12-2010, Exhibit A7 is the receipt for payment of Rs.431/- dated 16-12-2010.

7.       Exhibit B1 is the Original Meter Change Slip dated 14-07-2010, Exhibit B2 is the Original Test report, dated 16-07-2010, Exhibit B3 is the Consumer Grievance redressal forum, dated 05-10-2010,  Exhibit B4 is the rectified C.C.Bill certificate, dated 30-10-2010.

8.       Both parties filed their written arguments.

9.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

10.     Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

11.     The record shows that the complainant is a resident of Tagarapuvalasa, Visakhapatnam District and after his death, his legal heirs were added as per orders in I.A.NO.217/11 dated 27-01-2012.

12.     The case of the complaint is that even though they had consumed only 104 units for the period from 11-05-2010 to 11-06-2010, the bill came for total units of 4104 for the period from 11-06-2010 to 11-07-2010 by the request of the complainant, the OPs changed the matter.  On 14-07-2010, the matter was removed as per Exhibit B1 and sent to MRT for testing on 16-07-2010, and the meter was tested by MRT wing on 16-07-2010 in the presence of the complainant and gave test report, Exhibit B2 as arrears within the limits and it was sent to the complainant who signed thereon. Since the complainant’s signed on Exhibit B2 that the meter was tested in his presence and he is responsible for the report, whereas the complainant did not challenge the said document. He did not submit Exhibit B2 and did not go for any other testing lab or competent Authority. He has failed to establish that he did not consume the power excessively in the alleged month.  For these reasons, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence, the claim put forward by the complainant is untenable and it is liable to be dismissed.

13.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 25^th day of February, 2015.

       Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                     Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                       MALE MEMBER                       PRESIDENT        

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description
A-1	03-03-2010	Photostat copy of Death Certificate of K.Simhachalam
A-2	11-06-2010	Original Bill issued by OPs for Rs.255/-
A-3	11-07-2010	Original Bill issued by OPs for Rs.22,181/-
A-4	14-07-2010	Original meter change slip
A-5	05-10-2010	Copy of order passed by Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum
A-6	12-12-2010	Original Bill issued by OPs for Rs.20,535/-
A-7	16-12-2010	Original Receipt for payment of Rs.431/-

 

For the Opposite Parties:-              

Exhibits	Date	Description
B-1	14-07-2010	Original Motor Change Slip
B-2	16-07-2010	Original Test Report
B-3	05-10-2010	Original Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum
B-4	30-10-2010	Original rectified C.C.Bill Certificate

 

     Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                           Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT