DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR

PRESENT:- Sri S.Chinnaiah, B.A., B.L., President

      Smt.S.Lalitha, M.A., M.L., Member

Friday, the 30^th day of May, 2008

C.C.No.01/2007

Between:

            L.S.Narayana Rao

           S/o L.Swamy Rao, Agriculturist,

           r/o Kallur Village, Garladinne (M)

           Anantapur District.                                                   ….    Complainant

Vs.

          Central Power Distribution Co. of A.P.

          Ltd., rep. by the Superintending Engineer,

          (Operation), Engineering College Road

          Anantapur.                                                                  ….  Opposite Party

This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Krishna Swamy Kumar, advocate for the complainant and Sri N.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the  opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R 

1.         This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986   to direct the opposite party to determine the correct arrears for consumption of power before fixing meters by ASC Nos.22,50 and 163 of Kallur Village and award costs of the complaint.

2.         The contents of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is the resident of Kallur Village and he is an agriculturist.  He owns and possess Acs.13.16 cents of land in Kallur in which he installed three motors with agricultural pump-sets.  The opposite party is a Power Distributor Company of A.P. Government for Kallur Region.  He obtained connections from the Electricity Authorities and running the electrical motors since a long time in ASC Nos.22, 50 and 163 since April, 2004.  As per the policy of the Government, all agriculturists were enjoying free power with effect from 01-04-2005.  Some restrictions were imposed for free power distribution.  Under the new policy, Income Tax Assesses have to pay the charges at the rate of Rs.2/- per unit and if they adopt DSM measures, they have to be charged a tariff Re.1/- per unit.    The complainant is an Income Tax Assessee.  In obedience of the policy of the opposite party company, he immediately adopted the DSM measures   with effect from March, 2005 itself and informed the concerned authorities of the opposite party company.  Anyhow, the opposite party company failed to fix the meters to the said connections of the complainant soon after implementation of the new policy i.e. April,2005.  It is to be noted that the failure of the opposite party company to fix the meters should not cost the consumers unreasonable.  However, the opposite party fixed the meters to the connections of the complainant on the date as stated below:

A.S.C.No.         Date of fixing of meter

                               1.        22                       10-12-2005

                               2.         50                      10-12-2005

                               3.       163                      04-02-2006

The charges for the consumption of power after fixing the meters are regularly paying by the complainant.  Though the opposite party company did not fix the meters with effect from April, 2005 till the date of fixing of the meters, they assessed arrears at whopping amounts without any reason. The consumption of power for agricultural connections depends on various factors such as                    (1) availability of power (2) availability of water in the well (3) nature of crop              (4) rest of the crops and (5) seasonal conditions like rain season, summer etc.,  The complainant has already adopted D.S.M. measures like installation of frictionless, valves, specified HDFE Pipes, ISI brand motors, capacitors etc., which naturally reduced power consumption.  In addition, the complainant has raised the crops of bear fruits, custard apple, pomegranate etc., which consumes less water.  He is not at all raising heavy water consuming crops like Paddy, sugarcane or moderate water consuming crops like groundnut etc.,  As already stated, he raised horticulture crops of less water consuming varieties i.e. bear, custard apple and pomegranate.   More-over, even for these crops, he fixed drip irrigation system with effect from 2001 itself with State Government subsidy.  None of these points were considered by the opposite party company, while assessing the consumption of power with effect from April, 2005 till the respective dates of fixing meters to the above power connections.  Inspite of several requests and demands; they have not informed the nature of assessment to arrive at those whopping figures.   This attitude clearly shows the lack of transparency and reason in their assessment.  The complainant addressed several letters, but there is no reply.  He also got issued a legal notice                  dt.30-01-2006 to the opposite party company.  Afterwards, the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party company at Garladinne addressed a letter              dt.14-02-2006 to the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O., Rural West, Anantapur recommending for revision of amounts of arrears assessed for the consumption before fixing of meters.  Inspite of such a letter from its Assistant Engineer, opposite party company is bent upon collecting the unjustifiable, exaggerated and wrongly assessed arrears under the threat of disconnection.  Under the said threatening pressures, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- for each A.S.C.Nos.22 and 50 in addition of undue penalties.  Thus, a total amount of Rs.10,000/-  towards the assessed arrears is till now.   The opposite party company did not revise the assessed arrears, inspite of recommendation of the Assistant Engineer at Garladinne, the opposite party company assessed the arrears for consumption before fixing of meters as follows:

(a)  for A.S.C.No.22 – Rs.28,926/  (b) for A.S.C.No.50 – Rs.19,348/- and (c) for

A.S.C.No.163 – Rs.19,407/-.  It is learnt that the opposite party company assessed arrears at Rs.2/- per unit instead of Rs.1/- per unit in addition to assessment of excessive consumption.   Instead of revising the above amounts, the opposite party company resorted to demand even undue penal interest.  Thus, the complainant has always been ready and willing to pay the correct amount for the consumed power before fixing the meters.  But the opposite party company is adamant in collecting the above said amounts.  The opposite party company could have taken the consumption in the year 2006 as basis for the consumption in the year 2005 by reducing some amount for higher rain fall in 2005.  For guidance of assessment, the complainant furnishing the consumption details in the year 2006 as follows:

The rainfall during 2005 was heavy when compared to the rainfall during 2006.  Due to heavy rainfall consumption in 2005 was only half of consumption in 2006.    The complainant is a consumer and he is entitled for the benefits under the Consumer Protection Act.  The demand for excessive amount  of arrears and the failure of the opposite party company to revise the excessively assessed arrears for the period before fixing the meters, is deficiency of service that too after recommendation by the concerned Assistant Engineer.  Thus, the case of the complainant. 

3.         The opposite party filed a counter denying the complaint contents contending that ASC Nos.50 and 163 at Kallur Village stands in the name of the complainant i.e. L.S.Narayana Rao with 5 H.P. load and A.S.C.No.22 of Kallur was released in the name of Smt.Lakshmi Bai with 7.5 H.P. load is true and correct as stated in the complaint.  The Andhra Pradesh Government has classified the agricultural consumers in three sectors (1) Free Power Supply               (2) Non-Free Power Supply and (3) IT Consumers/Corporate Consumers with effect from 01-04-2005 as per the tariff orders 2005-2006.  The complainant comes under the purview of IT Consumer/Corporate consumer since the consumer has not followed the DSM measures as prescribed by the APERC in terms of tariff order, 2005-2006.  The fixing of the meters to the Income Tax Assessee is taken up by the company as soon as the instructions received from the higher authorities even though company having huge consumers, the meters were fixed to the complainant services.  The average units were billed till the fixing of the meters as per the instructions vide memo No.SE/O/ATP/Rev/JAO-L/LT/C2/D.No.1452/03 dt.23-08-2003.  The average units also based on the power supply provided to the agricultural consumers, but not at willful. The meters have been fixed by the complainant against A.S.C.Nos.22, 50 & 163 of Kallur on 10-12-2005, 10-12-2005 and 04-02-2006 respectively.  The payments being made partly by the consumer after fixing of the meters, but not regularly as stated by the consumer.  It is to be stated that the consumption of power of agriculture connections depends on various factors such as (1) availability of power (2) availability of water in the well (3) nature of crop (4) rest of the crops and (5) seasonal conditions like rainy season, summer etc., is not correct and not acceptable.  As per the instructions from the company as well as A.P.E.R.C. the C.C. bills issued.  C.C.bills were issued from 04/05 to 01/06 at Rs.2/- per unit based on the tariff orders 2005-2006, which is prescribed by the A.P.E.R.C. as the consumer not following the DSM measures.  From 02/06 onwards the C.C. bills have been issued at Re.1/- per unit based on the meter consumption furnished by the Assistant Engineer/Operation, Garladinne.  The complainant has paid only Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- on A.S.C.No.22 and 50 of Kallur.  The complainant has not paid any amount against A.S.C.No.163 of Kallur.  The consumer in his representation dt.07-09-2006 to the Divisional Electrical Engineer/Operation, Anantapur enclosed Xerox copies of capacitors, purchased vouchers, but not enclosed the receipts of HDPE/PVC Pipes and ISI mark motor vouchers, hence, they are not correct and acceptable even though CC bills have been revised and Rs.34,737/- have been withdrawn vide letter No.AAO/ERO/R/W/ATP/JAO-II/D.No.140 dt.05-02-2007.  Before fixing of the meters, the C.C. bills issued with average consumption as per the instructions of the competent authorities.  Hence, revision of C.C.bills before fixing of the meters does not arise.  The C.C.bills are pending for payment by the complainant to end of 01/2007 after withdrawing the C.C. Charges as follows:

The complainant was not following the DSM measures as enclosed receipts are only capacitor purchased receipts, but not produced the HDPE/PVC Pipes and ISI mark motor vouchers, even though, the C.C. bills revised @ Re.1/- instead of Rs.2/- per unit.    There are no such rules to adopt the consumption pattern of present year (2006) to the previous year (2005).  Based on the instructions from the competent authority, the average consumption was adopted for the year 2005.  The CC bills have been issued based on the meter reading for energy consumed by the complainant.  There is no scope for comparison with heavy rainfall in 2005, than rainfall of 2006.  The reasons stated by the complainant are unrealistic and unacceptable. The heavy rainfall during 2005 will not be compared with 2006 rainfall.  There are no such hard and fast rules to adopt such type of system to revise the CC bills. The average consumption was adopted before fixing of the meters as per the instructions of competent authorities.    As per the instructions of the company, the fixing of the meters taken upon on priority basis and meters fixed to the complainant alongwith other agricultural consumers.  Till the fixing of the meters, the average consumption was adopted as per the instructions of the competent authority. Hence, to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.         Heard arguments both sides.

5.         The point that arises for consideration herein is:

            Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service on the part

           of the opposite party ?

6.        Ex.A1 to A6 are marked for the complainant.  Ex.A1 is the office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dt.30-01-2006.  Ex.A2 are the Electricity Consumption Bills issued by the opposite party (3 in number).  Ex.A3 are the Electricity Consumption Bills issued by the opposite party (3 in number).  Ex.A4 are the receipts (2 in number).  Ex.A5 are the Rainfall Particulars of Garladinne Mandal for the year 2005-2006 issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Garladinne.  Ex.A6 is letter issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O./Rural/West, Anantapur dt.09-02-2007 to the complainant informing the revision of C.C.Bills in respect of A.S.C.Nos.22, 50 and 163 of Kallur Village on recommendation of the Assistant Divisional Engineer/(R)West, Anantapur.

            Ex.B1 is suomotu marked as the same is available on record filed by the opposite party.  Ex.B1 is the letter dt.23-08-2003 issued by the Superintending Engineer (operation), Anantapur directing the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO and Junior Accounts officer/SERO to bill the consumption for the services released under Tatkal Scheme from the date of release of supply. 

7.    POINT:-  We have gone through the contents of the complaint, counter, chief affidavits, documents marked either side, written arguments of the opposite party and the material available on record.

8.         The case of the complainant is that he owns and possess Acres 13.16 cents of land in Kallur Village, Anantapur District.  He has installed three current motors with agricultural pump sets.  The opposite party is the Power Distribution Company of A.P. Government for Kallur Region. He obtained electricity connection for running the electrical motors since a long time in A.S.C.No.22 in the name of his wife Lakshmi Bai with 7.5 H.P. load and A.S.C.Nos.50 and 163 in the name of the complainant with 5 H.P. load since April, 2004.   His further case is that as per the policy of the Government, all agriculturists were enjoying free power with effect from 01-04-2005.  Some restrictions were imposed for free power distribution.  Under new policy, the Income Tax Assessees have to pay the charges at the rate of Rs.2/- per unit and if they adopt D.S.M. measures, they have to be charged tariff Re.1/- per unit.  The complainant is an Income Tax Assessee. In order to obey the policy of the opposite party, he immediately adopted D.S.M. measures with effect from March, 2005 itself and informed the same to the concerned authorities.  The opposite party failed to fix the meters soon after the implementation of the new policy i.e. April, 2005.  The opposite party fixed the meters on 10-12-2005 for A.S.C.No.22, on 10-12-2005 for A.S.C.No.50 and on 04-02-2006 for A.S.C.No.163.  After fixing the meters, he is paying consumption charges regularly.  His next case is that though the opposite party did not fix the meters with effect from April, 2005 till the date of fixing the meters, they assessed arrears at whooping amounts without any reason.  His further case is that the consumption of power for agricultural connections depends on various factors such as (1) availability of power (2) availability of water in the well (3) nature of crop (4) rest of the crops and (5) seasonal conditions like rainy season, summer etc., His staunch case is that he has already adopted D.S.M. measures like installation of frictionless valves, specified HDFE Pipes, ISI Brand motors, capacitors etc., which naturally reduced power consumption.  In addition, he has raised the crops of bear fruits, custard apple, pomegranate etc., which consumes less water.  He is not at all raising heavy water consumption crops like Paddy, Sugarcane or moderate water consuming crops like groundnuts etc.,   His further case is that even the crops he raised like horticulture of less water consuming varieties i.e. custard apple and pomegranate,   he fixed drip irrigation system with effect from 2001 itself with State Government Subsidy.    Now the case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not consider none of the points while assessing the consumption of power with effect from April, 2005 till the respective dates of fixing meters.    After issuing legal notice under Ex.A1, the Assistant Engineer, addressed a letter under Ex.A6 recommending for revision of amounts of arrears assed for the consumption before fixing of meters.  But inspite of such letter, the company is bent upon collecting unjustifiable, exaggerated and wrongly assessed arrears under the threat of disconnection and that to avoid disconnection under threat, he paid Rs.10,000/- under Ex.A4 receipts.  Thus, the staunch contention of the complainant is that the opposite party did not revise the assessed arrears inspite of recommendation of the Assistant Engineer, Garladinne and as such there is every deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

9.           On the other hand, the opposite party is not disputing regarding the release of service connections as come forward by the complainant.  On the other hand, they also in counter and sworn affidavit says that the A.P.Government has classified the Agricultural Consumers in three sectors i.e. (1) Free Power Supply (2) Non Free Power Supply and (3) IT Consumer/Corporate Consumer with effect from 01-04-2005 as per the tariff orders 2005-2006.  The complainant will come under the purview of I.T.Consumer/Corporate Consumer since the consumer has not followed the DSM measures as prescribed by the A.P.E.R.C. in terms of tariff order                2005-2006.  Their further contention is the fixing of the meters to the Income Tax Assessee is taken up by the company as soon as the instructions received from the higher authorities even though the company having huge consumers, the meters were fixed to the complainant’s services and average units were billed till the fixing of the meters as per the instructions under Ex.B1 basing on horse power.  Their next case is that the average units also based on power supply provided to the agricultural consumers, but not at willful.   The complainant paid the bills partly after fixing of the meters.  Consumption bills were issued as per the instructions from the Company as well as A.P.E.R.C.  Their further contention is that C.C.Bills were issued from 04/2005 to 01/06 @ Rs.2/- per unit based on the tariff orders 2005-2006, which is prescribed by the A.P.E.R.C. as the consumer not following the DSM measures.  From 02/06 onwards, the C.C. Bills have been issued @ Re.1/- per unit based on the meter consumption furnished by the Assistant Engineer (Operation), Garladinne.  Their further contention is that the complainant has paid only Rs.10,000/- i.e. Rs.5,000/- on ASC No.22 and 50 of Kallur.  He has not paid any amount against ASC No.163 of Kallur.  The consumer in his representation dt.07-09-2006 to the Divisional Electrical Engineer (operation), Anantapur merely enclosed Xerox copies of capacitors purchased vouchers, but not enclosed the receipts of HDPE/PVC Pipes and ISI Mark motor vouchers and hence they are not acceptable even though the C.C.Bills have been revised and Rs.34,737/- have been withdrawn vide his letter dt.05-02-2007.  Their further contention is that before fixing of the meters, C.C. bills were issued with an average consumption as per the instructions of the competent authority and hence the revision of bills before fixing of the meters does not arise.  The staunch contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was not following the DSM measures as enclosed, receipts are only capacitor purchased receipts, but not produced the HDPE/PVC Pipes and ISI mark motor vouchers,  even though C.C. bills are revised @ Re.1/- instead of Rs.2/- per unit.  Their further contention is that there is no such rule to adopt the consumption pattern of present year (2006) to the previous year (2005).  C.C.Bills have been issued based on the meter reading for energy consumed by the complainant.  There is no scope for comparison with heavy rainfall in 2005 than the rain of 2006 as come forward by the complainant and the same can not be acceptable and as such there is no deficiency of service on their part.

10.       After going through the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the contention of the complainant is barren of substance.  It is a fact that the complainant has taken three agricultural electrical motor connections i.e. A.S.C.No.22 in the name of his wife Lakshmi Bai of 7.5 H.P. load and A.S.C.Nos.50 and 163 in the name of the complainant with 5 H.P. load each since April, 2004 to irrigate his land of Acs.13.16 cents situated in Kallur Village.  As per the policy of the Government, all the agriculturists were enjoying free power with effect from 01-04-2005.  As the complainant is an Income Tax Assessee, under new policy he has to pay the charges @ Rs.2/- per unit and if he adopts DSM measurers, he will be charged tariff of Re.1/- per unit.  Now, the complainant has come forward that in order to obey the policy, as he is an Income Tax Assessee, he has adopted DSM measurers with effect from March, 2005 itself and informed the same to the concerned authorities.  The opposite party failed to fix the meters soon after implementation of new policy i.e. April, 2005.  The opposite party fixed the meters on 10-12-2005 for ASC No.22, on             10-12-2005 for ASC No.50 and on 04-02-2006 for ASC No.163 and that from the respective dates he is paying the consumption charges regularly. The complainant states that the consumption of power for agricultural connections depends on various factors such as (1) availability of power (2) availability of water in the well (3) nature of crop (4) rest of the crops and (5) seasonal conditions like rainy season, summer etc.,  In order to revise the power consumption, he has adopted DSM measures like installation of frictionless valves, specified HDFE Pipes, ISI Brand motors, capacitors etc.,  Now the assertion of the complainant is that though the opposite party did not fix the meters with effect from April, 2005 till the date of fixing of meters, they assessed arrears at whooping amounts without any reason.  The opposite party has not at all taken into consideration the various circumstances prevail while fixing the consumption of power for agricultural connections, which amounts to depriving the rights of the complainant and creating loss.    His grievance is only after issuing legal notice under Ex.A1, the Assistant Engineer, addressed a letter under Ex.A6 recommending for revision of amounts of arrears assed for the consumption before fixing meters.  But inspite of such letter, the company is bent upon collecting unjustifiable, exaggerated and wrongly assessed arrears and in order to avoid disconnection he paid Rs.10,000/- under Ex.A4 receipts for service connections 22 & 50.  Though, the complainant has come forward that he adopted DSM measures, he has not at all filed any relevant documents or produced any evidence by way of affidavit or other-wise in support of his contention.  The complainant virtually has not at all proved his case as come forward by him with various contentions as mentioned in the complaint that the opposite party has assessed the arrears at whooping amounts before fixing the meters.  Virtually, the complainant though raised various factors and attributing against the opposite party, his contention is not supported by any relevant documents.  Thus, the complainant has virtually failed.  It is no doubt true that the complainant filed Ex.A1 notice, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are bills, Ex.A4 are receipts, Ex.A5 are rainfall particulars issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Garladinne for the year 2005-2006 and Ex.A6 is the letter issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, but the said documents are in no way improve his case.  Thus, the complainant virtually failed to substantiate the contentions raised in the complaint, in which manner he has come forward attributing the allegations against the opposite party.

11.       Now coming to the case of the opposite party, they are seriously disputing the contention of the complainant.  The opposite party, who is the Superintending Engineer (operation) both in counter and sworn affidavit, says that                                      A.P. Government has classified agricultural consumers in three sectors i.e.               (1) Free power supply (2) Non free power supply and (3) IT Consumer/Corporate consumer with effect from 01-04-2005 as per tariff orders 2005-2006.  He further says that fixing of meters to the Income Tax Assessee, is taken up by the company as soon as the instructions received from higher authorities. Even though the company is having huge consumers, the meters were fixed to the complainant’s services and average units were billed till the fixing of the meters as per the instructions under Ex.B1 based on horse power.  He also says that the complainant has not followed the DSM measures as prescribed by A.P.E.R.C. in terms of orders 2005-2006.  The opposite party empathically both in his counter and sworn affidavit asserted that the average units are based on the power supply provided to the agricultural consumers but not at willful.  He says that C.C. Bills were issued from 04/05 to 01/06 @ Rs.2/- per unit based on tariff orders, 2005-2006, which is prescribed by A.P.E.R.C.  as the consumer has not followed DSM measures.  From 2/06 onwards, C.C. bills have been issued @ Re.1/- per unit based on the meter consumption furnished by the Assistant Engineer, Garladinne.  Thus, as seen from the evidence of the opposite party, they have acted as per terms & conditions of tariff orders, 2005-2006 as the complainant has not followed DSM measures.  On the other hand, it is already observed that in the previous lines that the complainant has not filed any documents that he has followed DSM measures nor filed any relevant bills that he has followed DSM measures producing HDPE/PVC pipes and ISI mark motor vouchers even though the bills revised @ Re.1/- per unit instead of Rs.2/- per unit.  Hence, there are many latches committed by the complainant in not following the instructions as per tariff orders, 2005-2006.  The opposite party says that the complainant has not followed DSM measures as enclosed receipts are only capacitor purchased receipts but not produced the relevant HDPE/PVC Pipes and ISI mark motor vouchers even though C.C. bills are revised @ Re.1/- instead of Rs.2/- per unit.  The opposite party says that there is no such rule to adopt the consumption pattern of the year 2006 to the previous year 2005.  The opposite party asserted that C.C.Bills have been issued based on the meter reading for energy consumed by the complainant.  There is no scope for comparison with heavy rainfall in 2005 than the rain of the 2006 as come forward by the complainant under Ex.A5 and the same can not be accepted.    The opposite party has followed the instructions while billing the consumption for the services released under Tatkal Scheme from the date of release of supply basing on the load of Horse Power.  Ex.B1 is such instructions dt.23-08-2003 issued by the Superintending Engineer (operation), Anantapur.  Hence, there is no scope or other-wise for the opposite party that the bills issued are unjustifiable, exaggerated and wrongly assessed arrears as come forward by the complainant.  On other hand, the opposite party is not disputing the payment of Rs.5,000/- each under Ex.A4 receipts for A.S.C.Nos.22 and 50.  Further, they are not disputing that after fixing meters, the complainant is paying the bills regularly.  However, under the circumstances, the complainant has not come forward with the present complaint with clean hands.   As seen from Ex.A6 dt.09-02-2007, they have informed the complainant that the C.C.bills in respect of A.S.C.Nos.22, 50 & 163 of Kallur Village have been revised based on the recommendations of the Assistant Divisional Engineer/Rural/West, Anantapur and they have shown the details of the amounts due up-to 01/07, amounts adjusted up-to 01/2007 and the complainant was requested to pay the said amount.  Thus, the opposite party has rightly acted in fixing the C.C. bills as per tariff orders, 2005-2006 and accordingly they have demanded the complainant to pay the amount.  In our considered view, the rainfall and circumstances of the crops raised and water in the well is not a ground to take into consideration for fixing C.C. bills as the complainant has not submitted anything on this aspect.  Hence, it is already stated that the complainant failed to establish his case as come forward by him and there are no grounds to say that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, the complaint filed by the complainant fails and dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

12.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

          Interim order passed in I.A.No.66/07 dt.02-03-2007 is hereby vacated.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 30^th day of May, 2008.

                         Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-                                                                 

                  MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,                     DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

                  ANANTAPUR                                                    ANANTAPUR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

COMPLAINANT:   NIL                                                      OPPOSITE PARTY: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Ex.A1 -  Office copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite

              party dt.30-01-2006.

Ex.A2 -  Electricity Consumption Bills issued by the opposite party (3 in number).  Ex.A3 - Electricity Consumption Bills issued by the opposite party (3 in number).  Ex.A4 - Receipts (2 in number).

 Ex.A5 - Rainfall Particulars of Garladinne Mandal for the year 2005-2006 issued

              by the Deputy Tahsildar, Garladinne. 

Ex.A6 - Letter issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.R.O./Rural/West,

             Anantapur dt.09-02-2007 to the complainant.

            EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

Ex.B1 -  Letter dt.23-08-2003 issued by the Superintending Engineer (operation),

              Anantapur to the Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO and Junior

              Accounts office/SERO.

                         Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

                  MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,                     DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,

                  ANANTAPUR                                                    ANANTAPUR

Typed by JPNN