This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 14-03-12 in the presence of Sri  J. Vijayendra Kiran, advocate for the complainant and of Sri N. Kiran Bhanu, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:- The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to restore SC.No.14804 and also change  its category from commercial to domestic purpose; Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.15,000/- towards compensation; Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant is the owner of the house bearing                  D.No.16-4-114, Park Road,  Old Guntur, Guntur city.    One Thinnaluri Ankamma Rao obtained service connection bearing No.14804 to the said house.    The said house fell to the share of the complainant in the partition among his family members.  The complainant used the said service connection for domestic purpose for which the electricity authorities were issuing demand notices for usage of electricity.   The opposite party by its negligent act converted the category from domestic to commercial purpose.  Due to lack of knowledge and illiteracy the ancestors of the complainant paid consumption charges though charged under commercial purpose.   The complainant came to know about said facts on 12-12-10 and immediately approached the opposite party requesting it to change the category from commercial purpose to domestic purpose.   But the opposite party failed to covert the category inspite of several requests made orally and in writing.   In that connection, the complainant paid consumption charges under domestic category on the advice of the complainant.   Unofficially the opposite party disconnected the service connection on  12-12-10.  The opposite party is issuing demands without providing electricity.   The complainant paid minimum bill upto April, 2011.   Vexed with its attitude the complainant in order to obtain new service connection on 04-02-11 paid Rs.2,625/-  to the opposite party.   Even then the opposite party failed to provide new service connection.   The opposite party acted illegally and most highhandedly in disconnecting power supply without conducting proper enquiry inspite of requests and representations.   Electricity is a basic necessity for any citizen including the complainant.   The complainant and his family members are suffering al lot due to failure of supply of electricity by the opposite party which deteriorated their health.   The complainant is ready to pay the dues to the opposite party under domestic category.   The conduct of the opposite party in converting the category of service connection from domestic to commercial, disconnecting power supply without proper enquiry, not restoring power supply inspite of representations amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.  

3.   The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The service connection bearing No.14804 was originally issued in the name of Thinnaluri Ankamma Rao on 26-08-70 with a load of             480 W under category – I (domestic).   During its general inspection in January, 2006 the opposite party found the utilization of the said service connection under non domestic category and changed it into non domestic category with the knowledge of the consumer.   The consumer paid the electricity consumption charges under category-II (non domestic) upto November, 2007 with last payment of Rs.88/-.  As the complainant failed to pay the subsequent consumption charges the opposite parties disconnected power supply in May, 2008.   The opposite party has been issuing the bills by levying minimum charges.   The complainant has to pay Rs.30,345/- upto November, 2011.    The complainant never made any request for change of category at any point of time.   The letter dated 02-08-07 was created by the complainant for the purpose of limitation.   The complainant is having another service connection bearing No.127815 in upstairs portion of the same premises and he has been utilizing the same service connection to his entire house. The allegation that complainant’s family was kept in dark all these years is false.  The complainant applied for another service connection in his name for the same house to which the disconnection service already existed.   The opposite party returned the said application with a finding that there is no need to give another service connection to the premises which is already having service connection and which is under disconnection due to non payment of electricity consumption charges.  The opposite party did not take such step of disconnecting power supply to SC.No.127815 inspite of provision in terms and conditions of supply in order to accommodate the consumer to pay the arrear amount in an amicable way.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false.   The complaint be dismissed.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A-26 were marked on behalf of the complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to seek restoration of power supply?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to damages as claimed?
5. To what relief?

6.    Admitted facts in this case are these:

a) SC.No.14804 was originally issued in the name of         Thinnaluri Ankamma Rao, brother of the complainant    (Ex.A-1).

1. SC.No.14804 was originally under category-I (domestic)
2. Category of SC.No.14804 was converted to category-II (non domestic)
3. The complainant sought new service connection to the house bearing D.No.16-4-114 and paid Rs.2,625/-.
4. The opposite party disconnected the power supply to SC.No.14804.
5. The complainant for some period paid consumption charges under category – II.

7.    POINT No.1:-    The complaint was silent as to when the house bearing D.No.16-4-114 Park Road, Guntur city fell to the share of the complainant.    The complainant in para ‘b’ of his affidavit mentioned the following:

                  “Subsequently, due to negligent act of the opposite party the category of the electricity consumption is converted from domestic purpose to commercial purpose. Due to lack of knowledge and illiteracy my ancestors paid the electricity bill under commercial purpose.   When the house is fell to my share, I came to know about the said fact in the year 2007 and immediately I approached the opposite party and made a representation several times by informing the said fact and requested the opposite party to change the category from commercial purpose to domestic purpose.   But the opposite party failed to conduct property enquiry about the conversion of the electricity consumption to commercial purpose from domestic purpose in spite of several requests made by me in oral and written”.

8.    The complainant in para – b of complaint mentioned the following:

                  “Subsequently, due to negligent act of the opposite party the category of the electricity consumption is converted from domestic purpose to commercial purpose.   Due to lack of knowledge and illiteracy my ancestors paid the electricity bill under commercial purpose.   When the house is fell to my share, I came to know about the said fact in the year 12-02-10 and immediately I approached the opposite party and made a representation several times by informing the said fact and requested the opposite party to change the category from commercial purpose to domestic purpose.   But the opposite party failed to conduct property enquiry about the conversion of the electricity consumption to commercial purpose from domestic purpose in spite of several requests made by me in oral and written”.

9.     The averments made in the complaint and affidavit of the complainant differs the date when he approached the opposite party for conversion of category.   The difference of date assumes importance regarding limitation as rightly contended by the opposite party.   The opposite party is contending that Ex.A-1 letter dated 02-08-07 has been created by the opposite party. Ex.A-1 is extracted below for better appreciation:  

10.   Recitals of Ex.A-1 leads us to draw an inference that the complainant is aware of change of category of SC.No.14804 to category-II in August, 2007 itself.   The cause of action for filing complaint had arisen on 02-08-07 in the least.     It is well settled in law that once the limitation starts it will not stop.   The complainant ought to have filed this complaint on or before 02-08-09 to bring it in time.   Ex.A-1 was also referred to in Ex.A-7 dated 10-02-11.    But the complainant filed this complaint on 28-11-11 for the reasons best known to him.

11.   The contention of the opposite party about the complainant utilizing power supply to his entire house from SC.No.127815 and kept quite for a considerable time even beyond the period of limitation is having considerable force.  We therefore opine that the complaint is barred by limitation and answer this point against the complainant.

12.  POINTS  2 to 4:-     It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party committed deficiency of service by converting his service connection No.14804 from category–I  to category-II, disconnecting power supply and not restoring power supply.   One should not be guilty of committing deficiency of service before alleging the other as committed deficiency of service.  Ex.A-1 revealed that Thinnaluri Ankamma Rao in whose name SC.No.14804 stood is none other than the elder brother of the complainant.   The said Thinnaluri Ankamma Rao died on 04-02-96 as seen from Ex.A-5.   Ex.A-1 coupled with Ex.-5 leads us to draw an inference that it is the complainant who paid consumption charges even under category No.II.  Therefore the contention of the complainant about his ancestors paying the electricity bill under commercial purpose due to lack of illiteracy and knowledge cannot be accepted.    Therefore the other documents filed by the complainant in no way help him.   Under those circumstances we opine that the complainant did not approach this Forum with true state of affairs for the reasons best known to him.   Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.   We therefore answer these points against the complainant. 

13.   POINT No.5:-    In view of above findings in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2012.

            MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:   NIL

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT