Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smr C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 28th day of July,2003
C.D. No.30/2002
R.V.Samual,
S/o.R.Masumanna,
R/o.4-5, Peddapadu(V),
Kallur(M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri I.Joseph
-Vs-
Assistant Account Officer,
Electricity Revenue Office,
Andhra Pradesh Central power
Distribution Company Ltd.,
Kurnool (Rurals) .. . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri D.Sreenivasulu.
O R D E R
This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under sections 10 & 12 of CP Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to refund the excess bill amount of RS.3,716/- collected from the complainant for the month of January 2002, RS.500/- towards in conveyance and RS.1,000/- cost of the complaint.
The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the Consumer of the electrical energy supplied by the opposite party through meter No. 698656, he was residing in a small room and consuming not more than 35 units per month and was paying electricity charges regularly. The consumption charges for the month of September and October 2001 was very high and excessive and the opposite party put the consumption figures on the bill with gross negligence. The complainant then approached the opposite party and complained about the excessive bill, requested the opposite party for meter checking and paid RS.100/- towards checking charges also. But the opposite party issued another bill in January 2002 including the September and October 2001 bill also and pressurised the complainant to pay the bill other wise electricity supply will be disconnected, the complainant paid the said bill under the threat of disconnection. The complainant alleges that there is gross negligence on part of the opposite party in billing the units and the opposite party never cared to solve the problem of the complainant inspite of several approaches and demands. Hence the complainant approached the Forum. The opposite party in issuing excess bill to the complainant is held deficiency of service to the complainant.
The complainant in support of his case filed demand bill dt 1.3.2001,1.5.2001, 1.7.2001, 1.11.2001, and 1.1.2002 temporary receipt for RS.100/- dt 12.11.2001, payment receipts dated 6.3.2001, 6.5.2001, 18.7.2001, 6.9.2001, 6.1.2001, 11.1.2002 and 11.1.2002 and they are marked as Ex. A.1 to A.13for the purpose of appreciation in this case. The complainant filed his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of complaint averments and in support of his documents.
The written version of the opposite party besides questioning maintainability of the complaint both in facts and law and denies the all the allegations of the complaint averments and they are put to strict proof. It submits that the complainants case is false and further alleges that after receiving the complaint of the complainant the Assistant Engineer, Kallur, visited the complainants house and complained about the veracity of the meter. The Assistant Engineer after explaining the rule position to the complainant asked him to pay challenging fee of RS. 100/- for testing of meter, accordingly the complainant paid the fee of on 12.11.2002 and the meter was removed and sent to MRT lab for testing. The testing was done in presence of the complainant on 4.12.2001. As per the report there is no jump dial and the meter is ok. Hence the complainant has availed the remedy available under terms and condition of supply and the test report has become final. Therefore the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount as per the consumption metered. There is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prays for the dismissed of the complaint.
In support of its written version the opposite party filed letter dated 27.3.2002 of Additional Assistant Engineer and letter dt 7.3.2002 of Additional Assistant Engineer along with meter testing report and they are marked as ExB.1 and B.2 for their appreciation in this case. The opposite party filed its sworn affidavit in support of its documents and in-reiteration of its written version.
Hence the point of consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case alleging deficiency of service on the opposite party?:-
The case of the complainant is regarding excess electricity bill for the month of September and October 2001. The perusal of Ex A.1 to A.3 discloses the complainant was receiving electricity bills regularly and Ex.A.7 to A.11 discloses the complainant was paying the electricity bills regularly, the electricity charges for these bills is less than RS.200/-. The Ex.A.4 & A.5 are the alleged excess bills issued by the opposite party which are not only arbitrary but also excessive as per the complainant. The opposite party intends to relay for rebutting the complaint averments brought on record two documents in support of their written version i.e Ex B.1& B.2. The perusal of Ex B.1 & B.2 indicates the meter was sent for testing to MRT lab, on payment of challenging fee by the complainant, for complaint of dial slip/ Jump remarks and the test was conducted on 4.12.2001 in presence of the complainant. As per the report there is no jump in dial and the meter dial is ok and the complainant denies his presence when the test was conducted. The report filed by the opposite party is meter No. B-1863473 but it is not pertaining to the complainants meter number (the complainants meter No.s 698656). Hence there is no supporting, cogent, reliable and documentary material filed by the opposite party in rebutting the complainant’s case or to substantiate its written version. So the exhibits filed by the opposite party doesn’t appear to be worthy of any credit for reliance so no credence for reliance can be given to that report, the complainant on the other sides placed sufficient material as to his previous consumption charges in support of his case as to his bills i.e. Ex. A.1 to A.3 and payment receipts i.e.Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.11, the electricity charges for these bills is less than RS.200/-. Regarding the so called meter testing report filed by the opposite party appears to be a pretext adopted by the opposite party to avoid payment to the complainant.
The above said material in the absence of any material placed by the opposite party remained not only unrebutted but also conclusively established as to the deficiency of service of the opposite party to the complainant in issuing excessive bill to him of Ex. A.4 and A.5. Hence the complainant is remaining entitled with reliefs sought.
Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund the excess paid amount of RS.3, 716/-, RS. 500/-as conveyance charges and RS.500/- as costs of this complaint. Time granted for compliance for the said direction to the opposite party is one month from the receipt of this order indefault the opposite party is liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from thereon till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the open Court this the 28th day of July, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
