BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 9TH day of January, 2015
C.C.No.106/2012
Between:
R.Mysura Reddy,
S/o Chinna Rami Reddy,
Proprietor,
R/o D.No.87/787,
Madhava Nagar,
Kallur Mandal,
Kurnool District-518 002. …Complainant
-Vs-
Assistant Accounts officer (ERO-Rural)
APCPDCL,D.No.45/515,
Opp.KVR College,
Kurnool-518 003. …OPPOSITE PARty
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.D.Srinivasulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.106/2012
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To directing the opposite party not to insist the payment of Rs.8,354/- and direct the opposite party withdraw notice dated 03-11-2011.
- To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony.
- To grant cost of the complaint.
And
- To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is the owner of small scale manufacturing Cement Brick Industries, Dinnedevarapadu Village, Kurnool District. The opposite party provided electricity connection to his Industry with S.C.No.0104000722. The complainant had regularly paid the consumption charges without any default. There is no necessity of electricity supply to the manufacturing Cement Bricks. Due to machinery breakdown and labour problem brick unit was shut down during the period of April, 2011 to July, 2011. But the opposite party issued a demand notice dated 02-11-2011 for payment of Rs.8,354/- as arrears of bill from the period of May, 2011 to September, 2011. The complainant approached the opposite party and requested to change the meter, accordingly the opposite party changed meter. But the opposite party has not withdrawn demand notice. Due to negligent attitude of opposite party, the complainant had been suffered mental agony. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is unjust and neither maintainable in law nor on facts. It is stated that the complainant put an application on 25-03-2000 for electricity supply with service load of motor and lighting for his manufacturing Cement Bricks Industry. Basing on the usage of power the supply to the complainant is categorized as III L.T. At the time of inspection the meter was found struck up during the month of April, 2011 to September, 2011 and it was changed by the opposite party. The short fall was made good by raising demand of Rs.8,354/- and the complaint is liable to pay consumption charges as demanded by opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of opposite party filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- It is admitted fact that the complainant was provided Electricity Connection for his Small Scale Manufacturing Cement Bricks Industry with S.C.No.0104000722 at Dinnadevarapadu Village, Kurnool District. Ex.B1 is the application along with agreement submitted by the complainant to opposite party for supply of electricity connection load of service is 10.0 HP + 300 W only. The agreement is marked as Ex.B2. It is the case of the complainant that due to machinery breakdown and labour problem, his unit was shut down during the period from April, 2011 to July, 2011. The opposite party sent bill dated 03-11-2011 for Rs.8,354/- on the basis of 626 units from May, 2011 to September, 2011. The demand notice issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 03-11-2011 as marked as Ex.A2. After receipt of bill the complainant requested to the opposite party to calculate the bills as actual units consumed by the complainant, he also submitted a representation to opposite party in written which is marked as Ex.A1 dated 12-12-2011. But the opposite party did not withdraw demand notice and insist him to pay the said amount.
8. The opposite party in his sworn affidavit stated that there is necessity of electricity supply for usage of motor in the manufacturing of bricks and the electricity is provided to the unit with service No.0104000722. The meter was changed and the new meter is installed and basing on the usage of supply the short fall recorded while the meter was struck up and bill was raised for Rs.8,354/- and opposite party acted as per terms and condition of supply. The power consumption particulars are marked as Ex.B3. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that there is a neither negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. It is not a case of opposite party that there is consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load, it would amount to authorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act. So it is the duty of opposite party and its meter reader, who came regularly for meter reading to report that the higher authorities the meter was not functioning properly.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant contended that though the complainant paid the electricity chares regularly the opposite party illegally issued the arrears of bill from the period of May, 2011 to September, 2011 on the basis of 626 units. Even after changing he meter also the consumed power units are below 626 units. He cited decision reported III (2007) CPJ Page 93, III (2004) CPJ Page 458, II (2004) CPJ Page 267.
In III (2007) CPJ Page 204 Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi where in it was held that the bills to be raised based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of consumer for six months prior to and six months after period, during which meter remained defective. II (2007) CPJ Page 94 (NC) the Honourable National Commission held that bills to be raised based on actual meter reading available or on average basis.
As per section 26 of electricity Act, 1910 the consumer shall be billed for the period meter remained defective based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of the consumer for the six months prior to and six months after the period during which the meter remained defective.
10. In the present case on hand after the installation of new meter the consumption power energy is below 626 units. The opposite party sent bill Ex.A2 dated 03-11-2011 for payment of Rs.8,354/- on the basis of 626 units from May, 2011 to September, 2011. As seen from Ex.B2 it is clear that the consumption units from the period of November, 2011 to December, 2012, mentioned as below 626 units. Hence the opposite party estimated the units in the demand notice is excessive. There is necessity for the complainant to have the electricity connection for his Small Scale manufacturing Cement Bricks Industry. We perused all the material available on record and in the light of above decisions we found deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the opposite party to withdraw or cancel bill dated 03-11-2011 for the payment of Rs.8,354/- and issued correct revised bill to be based on estimated energy consumption by taking consumption pattern of consumer for six month after the new meter is installed and further direct to restore the electricity connection with service No.1014000722 to the complainant on payment of revise bill.
11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to cancel the electricity bill dated 03-11-2011 for an amount of Rs.8,354/- and issue correct revise bill an average basis and further direct to restore electricity connection with service No.0104000722 to the complainant on payment of revise bills and also direct to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complaint. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 9th day of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Representation Letter
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Demand Notice dated 03-11-2011.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Application cum agreement of supply.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of LT Agreement.
Ex.B3 Power consumption particulars of complainants unit.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
