Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/304/2011

Yenugu Chinnayya Dora - Complainant(s)

Versus

APEPDCL - Opp.Party(s)

T Parthasaradhi

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                             Registration of the Complaint:16-08-2011                                                                              Date of Order:26-02-2015

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

 

THURSDAY DAY, 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

        CONSUMER CASE NO.304/2011

 

BETWEEN:

1.YENUGU CHINNAYYA DORA S/O SRI APPANNA DORA,

HINDU, AGED 32 YEARS, ADVOCATE, R/O FLAT NO.305,

4^TH FLOOR, JYOTHI ENCLAVE, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-02.

2.YENUGU VEERA VENAKTA SATAYANARAYANA

S/O SRI APPANNA DORA, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS,

CHARTERERED ACCOUNTANT, R/O FLAT NO.305,

4^TH FLOOR, JYOTHI ENCLAVE, RAMNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM-02.

 

                                                                                            …COMPLAINANTS

A N D:        

1.THE SUPERINTEDENT ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE,

A.P.E.P.D.C.L.,  RAMNAGAR, GREEN PARK ROAD,  VISAKHAPATNAM.

2.THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, ASSESSMENTS,

APEPDCL., RAMNAGAR, GREEN PARK ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM.

3.THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINNER, ASSESSMENTS,

APEPDCL., RAMNAGAR, GREEN PARK ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM.

4.S.SURESH BABU, DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, ASSESSMENTS, APEPDCL., RAMNAGAR,  GREEN PARK ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM.

5.CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, APEPDCL.,

SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

 

          …OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

This case coming on 09-02-2015 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of SRI T.PARTHASARADHI, Advocate for the Complainant and of SRI K.S.SHANKAR, Advocate for the 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 to revoke the Provisional Assessment Order  Lr.No.ADE/O/Distribution/F.Dkt.38/11-12, D.No.1388/11, dated 26-07-2011 and to continue the electrical service connection bearing No. 187746/1324 etc.,  Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2.   The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainants are brothers and took schedule property i.e., Flat No.305, 4^th floor Jyothi Enclave, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam for lease from one G.Krishna Rao and the first complainant is an Advocate and the 2^nd Complainant is a Chartered Accountant by profession and they are using one room in the schedule property as their office and the remaining flat is being used for their residential purpose along with family members. Gas connection, Bank Account, Telephone connection are in their names. While so, on 17-06-2011 at about 13.40hrs, the OP stated that they noticed commercial activity in the schedule flat and on that they appraised that there are professionals and using room as their office and the remaining part for residential purpose and their offices are service oriented and not commercial in nature and asked the OP to have physical inspection. They did not heed their requests and the 2^nd complainant wrote on the inspection report that the said flat was used as office cum residential purpose and the OP official took away the inspection report from the 2^nd complainant without making any further endorsement on the inspection report and without furnishing any copy to them. The Assisstant Divisional Engineer has served a provisional assessment order dated 26-07-2011 on them and on 06-08-2011 asking them to pay Rs.17,560/- in addition to that supervision charges of Rs.50/- and further asked to pay 50% of the assessed amount together with supervision charges within a week failing power supply will be disconnected. The said assessment order shows the nature of the case is malpractice which is false. They have never indulged in any malpractice. The OPs have not violated the established law. The acts of the OP squarely fall in deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as there is question of possibility on the part of the OP to discontinue power supply to the schedule property, this complainant is filed.

3.       The 1^st Opposite Party filed counter which was adopted by Opposite Parties 2 to 5 by denying the material averments of the complaint is that on 26-07-2011 their officially inspected service no.187746 Category-I, in Section D3 and again inspected on 17-06-2011 at 13.40hrs and the inspection report was handed over to the consumer and it is observed by the ADE. The supply is being used for the office purpose and Audit and financial consultant by the  complainants, however, the service is being built under Category-I, but Y.V.Satyanarayana, Chartered Accountant present at the time of inspection has noted  while admitting supply is being used for office purpose and that premises is being used for residence. However, there is absolutely no domestic activity taking place in the premises but Y. V.Satyanarayana has refused to record the same on the inspection notes and insisted that LPG connection is in the same address disregarding the fact that the premises is being officially used for office purpose. On that examination of the records and relevant material that the complainants are guilty of unauthorized use of electricity for the purpose other than the sanctioned purpose and also careful consideration of  all the relevant aspects and provisional assessment and electricity charges due to the company in accordance with the section 126 of the Act at Rs.17,560/- based on the assessment rules contained in appendix-II read  with Clause 9.3. of the GTCS approved by APERC and if they wish to continue supply of power may have to pay Rs.8,780/- being 50% of the provisionally assessed amounts + supervision charges of Rs.50/- and furnished receipts to them within 7 days from the date of service of this order and that the complainants are agreeable to the provisional assessment amount and they may pay the amount in full within 7 days as per law and after production of a receipt towards payment of provisional assessed amount of Rs.17,560/-  in full to the Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO East APEPDCL., Visakhapatnam in addition to the supervision chares of Rs.50/-.

4.       That in case, the complainant  have any objection to this order they may make a representation to Divisional Engineer Assessment,   APEPDCL., Visakhapatnam within 30 days from the date of service of this order, the complainant without availing  the existing remedies available under the Electricity Act filed the present case. The Act provides a separate mechanism in dealing with provisional assessment order etc., for these reasons, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable

5.       To prove the case on behalf of the complainants, the 1^st Complainant filed his affidavit and  got marked Exhibits A1 to A2 and on other hand, on behalf of the OPs, the 3^rd OP filed his affidavit and no documents were marked on their behalf.

6.       Exhibit A1 is the Provisional Assessment Order dated 26-07-2011 and  Exhibit A2 is the LPG Delivery Receipt dated 02-07-2011

7.       Both parties filed their written arguments.

8.       Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.       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?

10.     According to the complainant, the OPs are supposed to render their service in accordance with the Law. But without following the established law, they booked gas but the malpractice in respect of offices of the Advocate and Chartered Accountant’s are service oriented and are not commercial in nature. Therefore, this forum is having jurisdiction  to redress their grievance. On the other hand, according to OPs, they are having duty on their part to check the defaults and occurring during the course of service to their consumers and rectify them and by following the procedural laws, their officials inspected the premises of the complainant and on coming to know the acts of the complainants comes under malpractice. Therefore, this forum has no jurisdiction.

11.     The evidence of record shows that the complainant had taken the property i.e., Flat No.405, 4^th floor Jyothi Enclave, Ramnagar, Visakhapatnam for lease from one G.Krishana Rao and are using one room in the schedule property as their office and the remaining flat in the schedule property is being used for their residential purposes together with their family members. To prove the same, the complainants have relied on their Gas Connection, Bank Account and Telephone Connection. According to them are in the name or in the name of the family members. Mere enrolment of name in the records, in our view, does not substantiate that the same services availed for only the purpose for which they are issued. Further, the complainants have not produced any documents stating that services are availed for only domestic purpose. There is no dispute that a house can be used for both professional and domestic purpose  but the fact is that it should be proved that the premises is used at first instance for the domestic purpose and also being utilized for professional. Moreover, two offices are being maintained, one for Advocate and the other for Chartered Accountant. When the flat is consisting of either two or 3 bed rooms and a common hall how can we understand that it is being used for residential and professional purpose. In these circumstances, it can be concluded that the premises is being utilized only for official purpose. If both are in one premises, the connection for domestic purpose i.e., category no.1 can be permitted. But the premises is only being used for profession and as such, it comes under commercial purpose.

12.     The evidence on record goes to show that on 17-06-2011, the officials of  OPs visited the schedule premises at about 13.40hrs and found services is being built under category No.I and the Chartered Accountant, the 2^nd complainant herein present at the time of inspection admitted that the supply was being used for office purpose even though it was first taken for domestic purpose. It is also observed in the report that there are no Gadgets like Mixy, Fridge, Gas Stove, Utensils or any other furniture which can reveal that a family is staying in that premises. Even though the premises have got domestic gas connection, a gas stove is also not seen. Although notice furnished which was being used for official purpose only.  The evidence of OP further goes to show that the Department has assessed the Electricity Charges due to the company in accordance with the 126 of the electricity Act for Rs.17,560/- based on the Assessment Rules. Exhibit A1 further goes to show that basing on the inspection report only, the 3^rd OP assessed the amount and the Department had given an opportunity to the complainant vide its Provisional Assessment Order dated 26-07-2011 that if the complainant wishes that the service provided to him has to be continued he has to pay 50% of the Provisional Assessment Amount  + Supervision Charges and if at all he has any objection, he can approach the Divisional Manager personally within 30 days but without approaching, they filed the present complaint. On scrutiny of the evidence of OP coupled with Exhibit A1 and for the reasons stated supra, we are of the considered view that acts of the complainant clearly comes under the malpractice and further without exhausting provisions contemplated under the Electricity Act, they approached this Forum. For all these reasons, the complaint filed by the complainant is deserves 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	26-07-2011	Original Provisional Assessment Order
A-2	02-07-2011	LPG Delivery Receipt

For the Opposite Parties:-               -nil-

    Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                        Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT