Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 10th day of September, 2004.
C.D.No.182/2003
G.L.Narasimhulu,
S/o. Chinna Narasanna,
R/o. Kovilakuntla (V)and (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . .Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri B.Nagalakshmi Reddy
-Vs-
1. Assistant Engineer,
A.P.Transco,
Kovilakuntla (V) and (M),
Kurnool Dist,
2. Assistant Account Officer (E.R.O),
A.P.Transco,
Banaganpalle (V) and (M),
Kurnool Dist. . . . Opposite party No.1&2 represented by
their counsel Sri D.Srinivasulu.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite parties to declare the demand notice dt 1.11.2003 issued by opposite parties as null and void, to produce total accounts of the service connection No.2909, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is the owner of a plastic moulded goods having service connection No.2909. The said factory was closed from 2001 to March, 2003 and started in April 2003. The complainant did not pay electricity bills during the said closed period. The opposite parties calculated total arrears and issued a demand notice to the complainant on 8.4.2003 for Rs.94,062/-. The said demand notice was putforth before the Superintendent Engineer Operation, Kurnool by the complainant and he granted 3 installments to pay the supra arrears i.e Rs. 31,352/- , Rs.31,330/- and Rs.31,330/-. The complainant paid first installment of Rs.31,352/- on 17.4.2003 under receipt No. 116397, Rs,25,548/- on 19.6.2003, Rs.25,510/- on 21.7.2003, Rs.8,000/- on 30.8.2003, Rs.6,000/- on 22.9.2003, Rs.6,000/- on 30.9.2003 and Rs.12,056/- on 30.10.2003 totaling Rs.1,14,466/-. On 1.10.2003 the opposite parties issued another demand notice including arrears of Rs.23,056/- and consumption bill amount as Rs.14,567/-, totaling Rs.37,623/- and the complainant paid Rs.26,623/- on 30.10.2003 and an amount of Rs.11,000/- is due to opposite parties. Again on 1.11.2003 the opposite parties issued another demand notice including out standing arrears as Rs.50, 404/- and consumption bill amount as Rs.12,294/-. The complainant submits that he is ready to pay due amount of Rs.11,000/- but the opposite parties refused to receive the said amount and are threatening to disconnect the service connection of the complainant. Hence constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum for reciefs against the opposite parties.
3. In substantiation of its case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) bill dt 1.10.2003 for the period of 9/2003 issued by C.P.D.C of A.P Ltd to the complainant’s service connection No.2909, (2) bill dt 1.11.2003 for the period of 10/2003 issued by C.P.D.C of A.P Ltd to the complainant’s service connection No.2909 and (3) Permanent receipts No.116397 dt 17.4.2003 for Rs.37, 402/- relating to service connection No.2909 and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1to A.3 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant, while the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceedings, the opposite party No.2 made his appearance in this matter through its counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case both in facts and in law and requiring the complainant to strict proof of the complaint avernemnts.
5. The opposite parties in their written version admits that the complainant was its Consumer and availing electricity supply vide ISC No.2909. It further submits that the complainant’s service connection was inspected on 2.4.2002 and found the complainant indulging in pilferage and the loss was provisionally assessed at Rs.2,97,416/- and asked the complainant to pay half of the assessed amount for reconnection. On 17.4.2002 the complainant made representation to pay 50% of assessed amount in installments and three installments of Rs.49,608/- each was given to the complainant and the complainant paid first installment on 20.4.2002 and the supply was restored. Mean while the complainant preffered appeal to the Chief Engineer against the final assessment of Rs.2,97,216/- and in the appeal the amount was revised to Rs.1,43,619.75/-. The complainant was asked to pay the said amount after deductions of earlier payments. On 8.4.2003 the complainant again gave a representation to Superintendent Engineer seeking time for payment of Rs.94, 062/- in installment and 3 installments of Rs.31,352/- each were given. The complainant paid first installment on 17.4.2003 and got reconnection and defaulted in payment of remaining installments. As on 9.6.2003 the complainant has to pay Rs.1,27,588/- and again requested time for making payments and as on 30.10.2003 the complainant has to pay arrears of Rs.44,576. Therefore there is no cause of action for the complainant for coming under the purview of C.P.Act and the complainant suppressed the fact of pilferage committed by him and hence that is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
- In substantiation of its case the opposite parties filed the following documents Viz (1) true copy of letter addressed by the Superintending Engineer Operation circle. A.P.C.P.D Ltd Kurnool dt 17.4.2002 to K.Mohan Rao, M/s SriShiridi Sai Plastics ltd, Kurnool. (2) true copy of letter dt 9.6.2001 of Superintending Engineer, operation circle. A.P.C.P.D Ltd Kurnool to the complainant (3) true copy of letter dt 2.4.2002 of Superintending Engineer Operation, to the complainant (4) proceedings of dt 26.3.2003 of Chief Engineer, Kurnool and (5) Installments sanctioned by Superintendent Engineer dt 1.2.1996 to the service connection No.2909 besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in-reiteration of its written version as evidence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.5 its appreciation in this case.
- Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
- The points which are not in dispute are that the complainant is the Consumer of opposite parties availing electricity vide S.C bearing No. 2909 at his factory. The complainant alleges that he paid arrears totaling Rs.1,44,466/- upto 30.10.2003. After payment of said arrears the opposite parties issued Ex A.1 demand notice dt 1.10.2003 for Rs.37,623/- including arrears of Rs.23,056/- and consumption bill amount of Rs.14,567/- and the complainant paid Rs.26,623/- on 30.10.2003 and Rs.11,000/- is due to opposite parties and on 1.11.2003 the opposite parties issued Ex A.2 demand notice for Rs.62,698/- including arrears of Rs.50,404/- and consumption bill amount of Rs.12,2,94/-. The complainant alleges that the balance due to opposite parties is only Rs.11,000/- but the opposite parties in Ex A.2 shows the arrears as Rs.50,404/-. But as against to it the opposite parties in para 5 of their written version avernments alleges that the complainant suppressed material information regarding his service connection and further alleges that on 2.4.2002 the complainant was found in indulging pilferage and the loss was provisionally assessed to Rs 2,97,416/- and on appeal to Chief Engineer the amount was reduced to Rs.1,43,619.15/- and the complainant was given installments for payment and the complainant paid first installment and was a defaulter from there on. As on 9.6.2003 the complainant has to pay Rs.1,27,588/- and was given five installments to pay the said amount. The Ex B.5 is the installments sanctioned by the Superintendent Engineer to the complainant. The Ex B.5 envisages the complainant has to pay the above said amount in five installments and the complainant paid first two installments of Rs.25,548.50/- and 25.510/- on 19.6.2003 and 21.7.2003 respectively. There after the complainant paid part payments of Rs.8,000/- on 30.8.2003, Rs.6,000/- on 22.9.2003, Rs.6,000/- on 30.09.2003 and Rs.12,056/- on 30.10.2003. The arrears due by the complainant to the opposite parties was Rs.1,27,588.50/- and the complainant paid totaling Rs.84,114/- and the complainant has to pay the remaining balance of Rs.44,474/-. But the complainant alleges that he has to pay Rs.11,000/- only as arrears to the opposite parties. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the complainant and as in the Ex B.5 the complainant was given five installments to pay Rs.1,27,588/- and the complainant paid Rs.84,114/- and the complainant is due of Rs.44,475/- to the opposite parties. Subsequent to that the said statement of the complainant not only remaining highly inconsistence but also thereby un-trust worthy and consisting of any bonafides of the complainant in that regard. Therefore, what follows is that the complainant did not pay the arrears of Rs.1,27,588.00/- in the sanctioned five installments and the due of Rs 44,576/- was included in Ex A.2 hence there remains no bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and that the Ex A.2 was not issued illegally and there is no deficiency of service on the side of opposite parties in that regard.
9. The facts borne in Ex B.1 to B.5 are not denied by the complainant’s side, hence from them it is clear that the complainant was defaulter in payment of arrears to the opposite parties and the complainant did not pay the arrears as per scheduled installments given to him. The complainant’s side except alleging illegal demand notice i.e Ex A.2 issued to the him and filling Ex A.1 and A.3 did not made any endeavour to substantiate his bonafides and malafides of the opposite parties by substantiating the same by any accepting and corroborative material. Hence in the circumstances discussed above, there remains no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs sought, as the case of the complainant is suffering for want of proper cause of action.
- Consequently, there being no merit and force in the case of the complainant, it is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer Typed to the Dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 10th day of September, 2004.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
