BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI D.SINGARA CHARY, B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT.
SRI K.VINODH REDDY, B.Sc.,
MALE MEMBER.
. . .
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 4 OF 2012
Date of filing: 31-01-2012
Date of Disposal:04-01-2013
Between:
T.Penchalaiah S/o Narsaiah, Age: 53 years, Occ: C.I.of Police,
CCS, Nalgonda, R/o H.No.2-1-170/2/4, Sri Venkateshwara
Colony, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District.
…COMPLAINANT.
AND
- Asst.Engineer, APCPDCL, Town-II, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
- Accounts Officer, ERO Office, APCPDCL, Suryapet Town.
- Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL, Near: New Bus Stand,
Nalgonda Town and District.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri K.Anantha Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri A.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI D.SINGARA CHARY, PRESIDENT
1. The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to
Contd…2
- 2 -
declare the bill issued for a sum of Rs.68,949/- in respect of Service Connection No.4140119421 as arbitrary, illegal and incorrect and to award damages of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this complaint are as follows:
The Complainant obtained the above service connection from the Opposite Parties to his residence bearing No.2-1-170/2/4 (ground floor), Sri Venkateshwara Colony, Suryapet Town. He has been regularly paying the bills for consumption charges right from the taking of power supply, i.e. 30-07-2000 till November, 2011 and he has to pay only a sum of Rs.249/- for the month of December, 2011. On 04-01-2012 the Complainant received the bill in question for a sum of Rs.68,949/- indicating therein that the Complainant had consumed abnormal units of 11028 in January, 2012. Having been shocked with the said bill, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 to rectify the bill. The Opposite Party No.1 received his representation and promised to rectify the same. Again, on 17-01-2012 the Complainant enquired about the developments, but the Opposite Party No.1 gave evasive replies. The Complainant being a Circle Inspector of Police was working at different places and he did not use so much of power in the month in question. The bill is patently wrong and in spite of representations, the Opposite Parties did not rectify the same. The acts of the Opposite Parties caused lot of mental agony.
Contd…3
- 3 -
3. The Opposite Party No.1 filed a written version admitting that the service connection in question was released to the Complainant on 30-07-2000. The issuance of the bill for a sum of Rs.68,949/- is also admitted and the Opposite Party No.1 also justified the same, denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is stated that on 27-12-2011 the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Thungathurthy inspected the premises of the Complainant and came to the conclusion that the meter reading was wrongly billed by the lineman by name Sri Paul Raj. On inspection, the meter was showing reading of 13325 units but the said lineman recorded only 2250 as having been consumed by the Complainant and he did not bill the remaining units of 11075. Accordingly, the said ignored units were billed as per the prevailing tariff and issued the bill in question. The said Paul Raj was also placed under suspension for his wrongful acts. The consumption as recorded by the said officer is correct and the billing made by the lineman Paul Raj was not correct and, therefore, the Complainant is liable to pay the demanded amount. The Complainant, in order to avoid payment, came up with false allegations and if this complaint is entertained and an order is made in favour of the Complainant, it becomes precedent to all such evaders. The Opposite Parties have no special enmity or grudge against the Complainant to issue a wrong bill. There was no defect in the meter as pleaded by the Complainant in as much as he never brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties any defects in the meter during the last ten years. The wrong billing made by Sri Paul Raj is a fraudulent act and this is not a case where the meter was defective in reading. There are no deficiency of services on the
Contd…4
- 4 -
part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has no cause of action. The Opposite Party No.1 ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written version of the Opposite Party No.1.
5. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. The Opposite Parties marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.
6. The point for consideration is:
Whether the bill in question is wrong and if so, can it declared
to be illegal and incorrect?
7. POINT:
There is no dispute that the Complainant is the owner of house bearing No.2-1-170/2/4 (ground floor) and that the service connection in question was released in his favour. It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Parties issued Ex.A-1 bill for a sum of Rs.68,949/- for alleged consumption of 11028 units between December, 2011 to January, 2012, i.e. in one month. The said bill shows that till December, 2011 he used 2350 units of power and the reading in January, 2012 was 13378, resultantly the units consumed for one month was shown as 11028. On receipt of the said bill on 04-01-2012, the Complainant filed a representation Ex.A-2 on the same day, addressed to the Opposite Party No.1 bringing to his notice that wrong billing was made by taking wrong recording both in respect
Contd…5
- 5 -
of his connection and that of his wife which is the subject of CC.No.5/2012. The Complainant also filed Ex.A-3 showing the track record of the units he consumed in each month right from January, 2002 to October, 2011 wherein the units consumed never exceeded three digits. In few months the reading was in the neighborhood of 200 to 400 units except in November, 2003 when it was 648 units and September, 2002 when it was 1533. The Complainant paid all the bills without expressing any murmur. According to him, he was shocked to note that he had consumed 11028 units on receipt of bill Ex.A-1 demanding him to pay a sum of Rs.68,949/- under Ex.A-1. According to him, the same is the result of wrong reading and consequent wrong billing. The said sum of Rs.68,949/- was revised and the Complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.52,418/- by a letter dated 30-01-2012 marked as Ex.A-4 and it was further decreased to Rs.36,676/- under Ex.A-5.
8. While it is the case of the Complainant that the abnormal billing under Ex.A-1 was the result of wrong reading or wrong calculation, the plea of the Opposite Parties as put forth in the written version is that one Sri Paul Raj, the lineman was taking wrong reading all through showing that the Complainant was consuming less units in collusion with him and the same was disclosed when Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Thungathurthy had inspected the same and that the officials of the Opposite Parties had placed the said Paul Raj under suspension as seen from Ex.B-1 suspension orders. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties also contended that the Complainant and the said lineman colluded together and committed fraud on the
Contd…6
- 6 -
Opposite Parties. A perusal of Ex.B-1 shows that Sri Ch.Paul Raj, lineman was collecting amounts from the consumers for new connections and meter burnt cases and that he was not depositing the same with the Department by obtaining Demand Drafts and that he also fixed unauthorized meters to the consumers and that he was also prima-facie guilty of corruption, illegal activities and gross negligence. Nowhere in Ex.B-1 it is shown that the said Sri Paul Raj was in collusion with the Complainant and helped him by taking wrong readings from his meter. May be the said Paul Raj was indulging in illegal and corrupt acts and was guilty of gross negligence, but Ex.B-1 suspension order cannot be connected to his alleged collusion with the Complainant in favouring him with the formal bills for lesser amounts.
9. Since the fraudulent acts attributed to Paul Raj and his alleged collusion with the Complainant is not established to the satisfaction of this Forum, it is to be seen as to whether the bill Ex.A-1 is correctly raised. As already stated, a perusal of the track record of the meter in question shows that the Complainant never exceeded normal usage of units. The affidavit of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operations, Thungathurthy who is said to have inspected the meter in question on 27-12-2011 and found that the meter was running high, is not filed explaining the circumstances under which he had detected the fraud. Since the fraud is not established and affidavit of the said Engineer was not filed to establish that the meter reading as recorded under Ex.A-1 was correct, it can be taken that there was defective reading in the meter resulting in high recording of consumed units. No material on record filed in this case to establish the fraud attributed to the
Contd…7
- 7 -
Complainant or that the meter was functioning properly. It is, therefore, a case of malfunctioning of meter which resulted in exorbitant billing under Ex.A-1. Even though under Exs.A-4 and A-5 the amount was reduced, it is not based on any ration and record. Therefore, the bill Ex.A-1 cannot be true and correct.
10. In a decision reported in Y.N.Gupta Vs.D.E.S.U. ( 1 (1993) CPJ 27 ) rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, the electricity authorities are under duty and under obligation to maintain and check the meter periodically. It was also held in the said decision relying on a decision of Delhi High Court reported in Shourie Vs.Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another ( AIR 1987 Delhi 218 ) that the maximum period for which the bill can be raised in respect of defective meter Under Section 26 (6) of Electricity Act, 1910 is six months and no more. In the said case, the Hon’ble State Commission had allowed the electricity authorities to limit the claim to 10000 units and awarded damages of Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant against the Electricity Board for having issued bill for abnormal amount for Rs.1,00,000/- above. Both the parties went in appeal and the appeal filed by the consumer was allowed and the exemplary costs imposed by the Hon’ble State Commission was enhanced from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.30,000/- and also disallowed the claim of Electricity Board for 10000 units as allowed and approved by the State Commission and set aside the order of the State Commission to that extent. Thus, the Hon’ble National Commission had quashed the entire bill. Even though the Electricity Act, 1910 was repealed by the Electricity Act, 2003, but
Contd…8
- 8 -
the under lying principle that there must be periodical check of the meters by the authorities has to be applied and this is also reflected from Regulation 14 of Central Electricity Authority Regulations, 2006. According to Regulation 14(2), the Electricity Board has to undertake periodical check and note the brief history, date of installation and details of testing, calibration and replacement of meters and also record the meter data maintained by database of all the information associated with the consumer meters and verify the correctness of metered data. It is not shown in this case that the Opposite Parties had undertaken periodical checking of the meters within a period of three months or six months. In the reported decision, it was held that the bill under challenge was prepared most casually and indifferently and elementary care was not exercised to see that the meters were malfunctioning. In this case also when abnormal reading was noted by the authorities, they should have checked whether the meter was properly functioning and this is more so when the fraud attributed to the Complainant with the lineman Paul Raj is not established and this Forum held that the recording abnormal units of consumption under Ex.A-1 was attributable to the malfunctioning of the meter.
11. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that the said decision is not at all applicable to this case because it was a case of malfunctioning. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of this case and failure of the Opposite Parties to establish fraud attributed to the Complainant in securing minimum bills in collusion with Paul Raj, this Forum was compelled to hold that when the meter showed abnormal reading of 11028 units, it was attributable to its
Contd…9
- 9 -
malfunctioning. When once it is so held, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Complainant referred to above can be applied to this case.
12. Even though a plea is not taken in the complaint, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted during the oral hearing that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In a decision reported in Jharkhand State Electricity Board Vs.Anwar Ali ( II (2008) CPJ 284 (NC) ), the Hon’ble National Commission held that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is expressly saved Under Sections 174 and 175 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act has over reading effect over the Electricity Act, 2003. The Complainant is not a commercial consumer, but is a domestic consumer since the power supply was taken to his residential house. In the circumstances, relying on the above decisions, we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
13. In this case there is no proof that the officials of the Opposite Parties had checked the meter periodically to detect and arrest fraud if there be any. Their inaction ultimately led to the abnormal billing of 11028 units all of a sudden under Ex.A-1 and as discussed and concluded by us it was on account of malfunctioning of the meter. Even in such case, according to the above decision, the Opposite Parties cannot collect the dues for more than six months. According to the office note Ex.B-2 and schedule attached to it, the charges related to the period from January, 2002 to December, 2011. It is difficult to bifurcate the same and calculate the charges for six months prior to
Contd…10
- 10 -
Ex.A-1. Had the Opposite Parties undertook the periodical checking of the meters the eventual bill Ex.A-1 could not have been issued. In not undertaking such periodical inspection of the meter, we hold that there is deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite Parties. In the circumstances, Ex.A-1 is to be declared arbitrary and incorrect and for deficiency of services of the Opposite Parties, formal sum of Rs.500/- can be awarded.
14. Keeping in view our finding that the meter was malfunctioning, we allow the complaint and pass the following order:
In the result, the complaint is allowed and
- Ex.A-1 is declared as arbitrary and incorrect and the Opposite Parties are prohibited from collecting the amount there under from the Complainant.
- the Opposite Parties shall replace the meter in the house of the Complainant at their cost and expenses so that henceforth correct reading will be recorded.
- the Opposite Parties shall undertake periodical inspection of
all the meters in the District for every three months and detect frauds being indulged in by various consumers and charge them.
- the Opposite Parties shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the Complainant towards deficiency of services.
e) the parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 04th day of January, 2013.
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
Contd…11
- 11 -
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of Complainant. None.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1 Dt.04-01-2012 Original Electricity Bill for Rs.68,949/-.
Ex.A-2 Dt.04-01-2012 Xerox copy of application given by the
Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-3 Dt. Consumption, Billing, Collection and
Arrears History of S.C.No.4140119421.
Ex.A-4 Dt.30-01-2012 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1
to the Complainant with regard to the payment of electricity bill of Rs.12,128/-.
Ex.A-5 Dt.30-01-2012 Letter addressed by the Opposite Party No.1
to the Complainant with regard to the
payment of electricity bill of Rs.7,597/-.
For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B-1 Dt.29-12-2011 Xerox copy of Suspension Order, suspending
Ch.paul Raj, Lineman, Suryapet Town-II.
Ex.B-2 Dt. Xerox copy of Revision of back billing.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
TO
1). Sri K.Anantha Reddy,
Advocate for the Complainant.
2). Sri A.Suresh Babu,
Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
