Date of Filing ::12-03-2013
Date of Disposal :: 12-08-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Wednesday, this the 12th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.34/2013
Attaluri Charles,
son of Koteswara Rao,
aged 42 years,
resident of Sanjeevanagar,
Addanki (post), Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
The Assistant Electrical Engineer,
APSPDCL, Addanki Village and Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Opposite Party
This complaint under section-12 of consumer protection Act, 1986, coming on 27-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri B.L. Narayana, advocate for complainant and Sri E. Rajasekhara Reddy, advocate for opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is related to one Devadas and Soubhagyamma. Devadas and Soubhagyamma were having a service connection to their house, with no.1566. The complainant became owner of the house. It was a domestic connection. Before July, 2012, the complainant was getting Rs.500/- to Rs.1600/- towards monthly consumption charges. Surprisingly in July, 2012, the opposite party served a bill for Rs.16,075/-. The bill is wrong. The meter was checked by the opposite party on payment of charges. The meter was replaced. The meter was technically defective. Hence, it shows wrong reading and wrong charges. The above amount was not deducted. Hence, the complaint for deduction of Rs.16,075/-, costs and compensation.
2. The opposite party did not file counter.
3. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
4. The complainant filed number of bills/demand notices and receipts.
5. POINT:- The complainant pleaded that he got excess bill in the month of July, 2012. The complainant wants deduction of the amount of Rs.16,075/- from the bill along with payment of compensation and costs. The amount sought by the complainant, is the excess amount mentioned in the bill in the month of July, 2012. The opposite party has not contested the matter. The complainant filed number of bills/demand notices and receipts. Some of the bills were for amounts of Rs.700/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- likewise. However, the bills from July onwards were for an amount of more than Rs.14,000/- and odd rupees. The bill dated 10-07-2012 was for Rs.16,075/-. An amount of Rs.14,528/- was mentioned towards arrears in the said bill. There is no dispute with regard to the service connection number. All the bills are in the name of Devadas. From the bills, it is clear that the complainant is in arrears of some payments. When the opposite party is claiming amount towards arrears, this Forum has no jurisdiction. If the same is towards excess bill as contended by the complainant, the designated court is the proper Forum in which the complainant can question the same. The opposite party has every right to collect arrears by including them in the bill. The opposite party claiming the amount towards arrears is not a deficiency of service. Since no deficiency of service is established, the compliant has to fail. The point is held against the complainant.
6. In the result the complaint fails and dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
-NIL-
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
-NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY:
-NIL-
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//free copy//
Date of Filing ::12-03-2013
Date of Disposal :: 12-08-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Wednesday, this the 12th day of August, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.34/2013
Attaluri Charles,
son of Koteswara Rao,
aged 42 years,
resident of Sanjeevanagar,
Addanki (post), Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
The Assistant Electrical Engineer,
APSPDCL, Addanki Village and Mandal,
Prakasam District. … Opposite Party
This complaint under section-12 of consumer protection Act, 1986, coming on 27-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of Sri B.L. Narayana, advocate for complainant and Sri E. Rajasekhara Reddy, advocate for opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is related to one Devadas and Soubhagyamma. Devadas and Soubhagyamma were having a service connection to their house, with no.1566. The complainant became owner of the house. It was a domestic connection. Before July, 2012, the complainant was getting Rs.500/- to Rs.1600/- towards monthly consumption charges. Surprisingly in July, 2012, the opposite party served a bill for Rs.16,075/-. The bill is wrong. The meter was checked by the opposite party on payment of charges. The meter was replaced. The meter was technically defective. Hence, it shows wrong reading and wrong charges. The above amount was not deducted. Hence, the complaint for deduction of Rs.16,075/-, costs and compensation.
2. The opposite party did not file counter.
3. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
4. The complainant filed number of bills/demand notices and receipts.
5. POINT:- The complainant pleaded that he got excess bill in the month of July, 2012. The complainant wants deduction of the amount of Rs.16,075/- from the bill along with payment of compensation and costs. The amount sought by the complainant, is the excess amount mentioned in the bill in the month of July, 2012. The opposite party has not contested the matter. The complainant filed number of bills/demand notices and receipts. Some of the bills were for amounts of Rs.700/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.1,000/- likewise. However, the bills from July onwards were for an amount of more than Rs.14,000/- and odd rupees. The bill dated 10-07-2012 was for Rs.16,075/-. An amount of Rs.14,528/- was mentioned towards arrears in the said bill. There is no dispute with regard to the service connection number. All the bills are in the name of Devadas. From the bills, it is clear that the complainant is in arrears of some payments. When the opposite party is claiming amount towards arrears, this Forum has no jurisdiction. If the same is towards excess bill as contended by the complainant, the designated court is the proper Forum in which the complainant can question the same. The opposite party has every right to collect arrears by including them in the bill. The opposite party claiming the amount towards arrears is not a deficiency of service. Since no deficiency of service is established, the compliant has to fail. The point is held against the complainant.
6. In the result the complaint fails and dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 12th day of August, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
-NIL-
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
-NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY:
-NIL-
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) The complainant.
2) The opposite party.
Free copy was issued in dis.no. /date:
//free copy//
