BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.82/2008 Order dated this the 11th day of November 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Thangamuthachari S/o Muthachari, Darasaguppe, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District, P.A.Holder of T.Krishna S/o Thangamuthachari. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Section Officer, Chamundeswari Electricity Supply Ltd., Pandavapura, Mandya District. 2. Executive Engineer, Chamundeswari Electricity Supply Ltd., Pandavapura, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.V.Sheshadri., Advocate) Date of complaint 18.08.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 05.09.2008 Date of order 11.11.2008 Total Period 2 Months & 6 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Parties to provide electric supply to the Consumer, if the complainant files appeal to the Superintending Engineer by depositing 1/3 of the disputed amount of Rs.10,676/- along with 1% as fee for the appeal and further pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 2 months with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties for a direction either to refund the deposit made for 2 HP and also minimum excess payments made for 2 HP from 19.07.1991 to 20.07.2002 or to adjust the same towards the arrears of electricity bills and to direct to reconnect the electricity to his workshop and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and Rs.50,000/- for mental shock and agony. 2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The son of the complainant by name Krishna has been running the workshop namely Sree Angaleswari Engineering Works, Darasaguppe, K.Shettihally Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk having electricity supply from Opposite party for 6 HP under S.P.272 from 1981. The complainant has been running the workshop since many years by manufacturing the implements required for agricultural use and attending to repair work by making payment of the electricity bills regularly up to 19.07.1991. But on 19.07.1991 the officials of the Opposite parties pertaining to M.R.T. visited the work shop and after checking the machineries made entry as if 8 HP power has been used and issued the certificate. So the complainant has made deposit for higher 2 HP and making payment for the minimum charges for the higher 2 HP along with regular electricity bills. Again on 27.06.2002 the staff of the M.R.T. visited the workshop and after checking they issued certificate that power being consumed by the complainant is for 6 H.P. After this report the complainant made representations to Opposite party requesting for refund of the deposit amount for 2 H.P. and excess payment made for 2 HP from 19.07.2001 to 27.06.2002 or for adjustment of the excess amount towards the future electricity bills. The representations were made on 06.08.2002, 19.08.2003 and 27.09.2004, but no communications were received by the complainant from the Opposite parties and thereby Opposite parties exhibited the deficiency of service. So on 11.09.2006, the complainant wrote letter to AEE, Srirangapatna requesting to take action regarding his earlier representations, but no action was taken and legal notice dated 23.12.2005 was also issued, but no reply was received. Again another legal notice dated 13.06.2007 there was no reply. But on 20.12.2005, the Opposite parties disconnected the electricity supply to the work shop and thereby the complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the present complaint is filed for the gross negligence and deficiency of service. 3. The Opposite parties have filed common version pleading that the complainant is not maintainable since there is no contract between the complainant and the Opposite party. But there is electricity supply to the Angaleshwari Engineering Works, Darasaguppe, S.R.Patna Taluk belonging to one Krishna. By installing and changing of the different capacity of machines consumed electric power differs from time to time on the basis of the capacity of the machine installed by the consumer. Hence, the official of M.R.P. Section when visited the workshop on 19.07.1991, it was found that electricity consumption of machine was 8 HP, though the sanctioned power is for 6 H.P. Hence, the excess power consumed for 2 H.P. rate was fixed and consumer Krishna paid the regular electric bill for 8 H.P. electric consumption. When the staff of M.R.T. section visited and noticed that some of the machineries are altered or changed which results the reduction of consumption of electricity through 6 H.P. Hence, the question of refund of excess amount made by the complainant for 2 HP from 19.07.2001 to 27.06.2002 and question of adjustment of excess amount towards electricity bills does not arise and the same was informed to the consumer. Since, the consumer has not approached there is no necessity for the Opposite party to issue reply to the unconcerned persons. Hence, there is no deficiency of service alleging by the complainant. The complainant has to prove that the workshop was being run for the purpose of family maintenance and both son and father are living together in order to maintain the present complaint. Further, the complainant has approached the higher authority of the 2nd Opposite party for which he was advised to prefer an appeal with them by making payment of 1% of the processing fee for the disputed amount of non-payment of electric bill vide letter No.4840 dated 13.11.2007. But the complainant has not fulfilled the same. The complainant has not paid the electric bill by stating that previous bills issued are not in order and avoided to pay the bill. When the amount was huge for the payment, then only the complainant has filed this false complaint. As per rules and regulations of the Corporation, the electric supply was disconnected. There is no basis or reason to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss. The complaint is not maintainable as per law of limitation for the refund of excess payment for 2 HP from 19.07.2001 to 27.06.2002 and consumer ought to have filed the complaint on or before 26.06.2004, there is no cause of action. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed withy costs. 4. During trail, the Complainant is examined and has produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.21. On behalf of the 2nd Opposite party one witness is examined and produced Ex.R.1 to R.5 and after notice by the complainant, Opposite party has produced some documents. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the complainant is a Consumer and complaint is maintainable? 2) Whether the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not taking action for the letters of the complainant for refund or adjustment of the minimum excess payment made for 2 H.P? 3) Whether disconnection of electric supply is illegal? 4) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 5) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 6) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that one Krishna is the owner of workshop by name Angaleshwari Engineering Works, Darasaguppe, K.Shettihally Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, to which there is electricity supply from the Opposite party under SP No.272 for 6 HP from 1986 and the workshop is used for manufacturing the implements required for agricultural use. According to the Opposite party, the complainant is not a consumer and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. But the complainant has produced General Power of Attorney Ex.C.1 issued by T.Kirhsna the owner of the said machinery in favour of his father, the complainant. Even though, the installation stands in the name of Krishna the son of the complainant, but the records reveals that the complainant is running the machinery and therefore he is a beneficiary and hence the complaint is maintainable. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the power sanctioned is 6 H.P. and the consumer was paying the electric bills regularly. It is an admitted fact that on 19.07.1991 the official of MRT belonging to Opposite party Corporation inspected the workshop and found the machine is using 8 H.P. electric power and they prepared the report and therefore the consumer was asked to make deposit for extra 2 H.P. and also the consumption charges and complainant deposited the amount and regularly paying the consumption charges for 8 H.P. and again on 27.06.2002 as per Ex.C.13 & 14, the MRT section visited the workshop and found that the consumer was using 6 HP and thereafter, the Opposite party was issuing electric bills for 6 H.P. only. 10. The greivance of the complainant is that after the second inspection in 2002 he made representations to Opposite party requesting for refund of the deposit amount for 2 H.P. and excess payment from 19.07.1991 to 27.06.2002 or for adjustment of the said amount towards future electricity bills, his representation dated 06.08.2002, 19.08.2003 and 27.09.2004 were not at all replied in spite of several letters and hence Opposite party exhibited deficiency of service. But the Opposite party disconnected electricity supply on 20.12.2005, then the complainant got issued legal notice dated 23.12.2005 and he wrote a letter on 11.09.2006 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Srirangapatna to take action regarding his representations. Again legal notice dated 13.06.2007 was sent, but there is no reply. The complainant has produced Ex.C.1 copy of the letter given to the Managing Director, KPTCL, Kaveri Bhavan, Bangalore on 12.05.2006 complaining that the Opposite parties are not taking any action for his representations for refund of the excess amount paid. He has also filed petition to the Managing Director of the Opposite party Corporation as per Ex.C.4 on 19.12.2006, he has filed petition as per Ex.C.5 to 2nd Opposite party on 28.08.2006 complaining that has deposited totally Rs.8,000/- for extra 2 H.P. and also made deposit and the electricity supply has been disconnected for non-payment of bills on account of financial problem and further requested to adjust the excess amount collected and provide electric supply. As per Ex.C.6 dated 15.07.2006, the AEE, CHESCOM of S.R.Patna has written a letter to Executive Engineer, Pandavapura informing the claim of refund and to take action on the ground that consumer is not making any correspondence. Another petition Ex.C.7 was given on 13.06.2007 to AEE, CHESCOM stating that towards the electric bill for Rs.10,200/-, they would deposit Rs.3,000/- and the remaining amount would be deposited after settlement by the department and to provide electric supply, on the ground that they have paid excess of Rs.7,200/- due to illegal report by MRT. The complainant has produced Ex.C.15 dated 11.03.2008 sent by the AEE, S.R.Patna to the consumer T.Krishna furnishing the information about the power sanctioned and use of 8 HP from 22.05.1993 and then issue again electric bills for 6 H.P. on the basis of report dated 22.09.2002 by MRT section and disconnection on 20.12.2005 for non-payment of the bill dues. In Ex.C.16 AEE, S.R.Patna has informed the consumer that the bills were issued for 7.7 HP on the basis of inspection by meter testing section and it was deposited. Again on inspection dated 27.06.2002 founding the use of 6 H.P. power, the bills were issued and paid and therefore the refund of minimum amount deposited up to 27.06.2002 cannot be entertained. 11. On the basis of these documents it is contended that the Opposite party has committed negligence and deficiency in service and further contended that in the letter Ex.C.16 (dated 27.09.2004) no reason is mentioned as to why the amount paid from May 1993 to 27.06.2002 for 2 H.P. cannot be refunded. Therefore, the complainant was kept in darkness. 12. On the other hand, it is contended by the Opposite party that as per Ex.R.5 dated 13.11.2007, all the letters of the complainant were sent to 2nd Opposite party and 2nd Opposite party sent letter Ex.R.5 stating that 1/3 of disputed amount of the bills is not deposited with 1% of the amount for filing the appeal and there is no appeal petition as prescribed and there is no reason one Sri.T.Ravikumar has filed a petition and therefore, the complainant was informed and has not filed any appeal and he has not challenged the bills issued and amount deposited from 1993 to 2002 for 8 HP on the basis of report by MRT. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. 13. The records reveal that and it is also admitted fact that from 19.07.1991 to 27.06.2002, the complainant deposited the amount for extra 2 H.P. on account of the report of the MRT section and then the complainant has made petitions to the Opposite party for refund of the amount, on the ground that the MRT section itself confirmed later that the complainant was using 6 HP power on 27.06.2002. According to the Opposite party suggestion only on 12.05.2006, the complainant has claimed the refund of the amount and further contended by Opposite party, the complainant should have been filed within 2 years on or before 26.06.2004, but as per the letter of Opposite party dated 27.09.2004 as per Ex.C.16, it is manifest that the complainant filed petition on 06.08.2002 i.e. immediately within 2 months from the date of inspection by MRT section and then also 19.08.2003 and in this letter the Opposite party has informed that the amount paid up to 27.06.2002 cannot be refunded. But why the amount cannot be refunded, is not mentioned as contended by the complainants advocate. Thereafter, the complainant has filed petition Ex.C.2 on 12.05.2006, Ex.C.4 on 19.12.2006 and Ex.C.5 on 28.08.2006 to AEE S.R.Patna and the said petitions were forwarded to the Executive Engineer, Pandavapura as per Ex.C.6 to consider the same, but the Executive Engineer of Pandavapura has not at all taken any action. Only in November 2008 as per Ex.R.5 the Superintending Engineer, CHESCOM, Mandya has returned the files to the AEE, S.R.Patna informing about the defect in filing the appeal. According to the documents, the copy of the letter was sent to the consumer by courier service and it was returned un-served as not available. Though all through the complainant was corresponding by filing petitions as a beneficiary of the consumer, some of the replies were served to the complainant and only the letter of November 2007 was not served. 14. From the above facts, it is manifest that in spite of the petitions to the Opposite party officials questioning the extra amount collected for 2 HP by claiming refund of the amount or adjustment towards future bill, it cannot be said that the complainant has not challenged the bill for 8 HP, but the Opposite party officials simply informed that the amount cannot be refunded and they have not informed that report of the MRT is correct and there is no provision to refund the amount and then the complainant can file appeal to the Higher Authorities. In spite of complaint to the Managing Director of the Opposite party Corporation as per Ex.C.2 in 2006 itself, the Opposite parties have not taken any action and complainant was made to pay the bills and in that connection he has not paid the bills to the tune of Rs.9,427/- as per Ex.C.10 and the electricity was disconnected on 20.12.2005 without any notice to the complainant or the actual consumer on record. Nothing prevented the Opposite party to inform the consumer to prefer an appeal about the non-refund of the excess amount collected for 2 HP and that made the complainant not to pay the electric bill hoping for the adjustment of the excess amount paid towards the future bills. Therefore, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by not properly intimating the consumer that he should file an appeal for claiming the refund of the amount to the higher authorities and the disconnection of electricity on 20.12.2005 without notice when the claim of the complainant was pending also amounts to deficiency in service. 15. Though it is contended that the complaint it is barred by limitation, but there are correspondences between the complainant and the Opposite party from 2002 onwards till November 2007 and therefore there is no question of limitation for filing the complaint. 16. The complainant sought for direction mentioned above in the preamble. Under the circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to direct the complainant to file appeal in the prescribed form to the Superintending Engineer, Mandya by depositing 1/3 of the bill amount as on disconnection date 20.12.2005 and 1% for the appeal and if the complainant complies the same, the Opposite party shall provide electric supply to the consumer until decision by the Superintending Engineer. 17. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss caused due to disconnect of electric supply from 20.12.2005 by negligence of Opposite party in spite of so many requests for consideration of his claim and the delay in considering the claim of the complainant by the officers of the Opposite party corporation, has caused loss to the complainant and that is the main reason for non-payment of the bills by the complainant which led to disconnection of the electric supply. Therefore, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5,000/-. 18. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Parties to provide electric supply to the Consumer, if the complainant files appeal to the Superintending Engineer by depositing 1/3 of the disputed amount of Rs.10,676/- along with 1% as fee for the appeal and further pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 2 months with cost of Rs.1,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 11th day of November 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
