FA.No.1353/2007 against  CD.No.731/2004 District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam.

Between:

Vuyyuru Sita Mahalakshmi, W/o.V.C.Panduranga Reddy,

Hindu, Aged 57 years, R/o.Flat No.2F-4, Sagar View Apartments,

R.K.Beach Road, Visakhapatnam.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And

1.Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

   Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.

2.Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh,

   Rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Visakhapatnam.

3.Assistant Engineer (Operations), Eastern Power Distribution

   Company of Andhra Pradesh, D-5, Taj Hotel Road,

   Nowroji Road, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.

Counsel for the Appellant          :  Mr.S.Rajan.

Counsel for the Respondents    :  Mr.V.Ajay Kumar.

QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Member)

******* 

1.         Aggrieved by the order in CD.No.731/2004 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Visakhapatnam, the complainant preferred this appeal.

2.         The brief facts as out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a shop room in the ground floor of Sagar View Apartments near R.K.Beach Road of Visakhapatnam from one V.S.P.Ranga Raju.  The said premises was provided with a service connection No.60288/1212 in the name of Ranga Raju.  Though the complainant purchased the property in the year 1992 along with service connection, she has not changed her name in the records of opposite parties.  The complainant was running a shop under the name and style of M/s.Sagar View Department Stores. The complainant alleges that her bimonthly consumption charges never exceeded Rs.2,500/-.  While things stood thus, on 06.07.2004, an employee of the third opposite party came to the shop and handed over a bill for Rs.17,282/-.  When the complainant requested to depute one of the staff members for inspecting the meter, the third opposite party visited the shop and found that the meter was recording more than 8 units per two or three minutes.  Then the third opposite party ordered for replacement of the same with another meter.  Accordingly, on 07.07.2004 at about 1.00 p.m. the staff of third opposite party came and replaced the meter.  The complainant alleges that the old meter recorded the consumption of electricity as 1635 units from 17.07 hours on 06.07.2004 to 1.00 p.m. on 07.07.2004, though the shop was closed during the said period.  This clearly shows that the old meter was a faulty one.  The meter reading from 07.07.2004 to 22.07.2004 recorded in the new meter is 00077.  This clearly shows that the complainant consumed only 77 units during the aforesaid period of 16 days.  The conduct of opposite parties in raising the bill dt. 06.07.2004 basing on the defective/faulty meter amounts to deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to assess the consumption charges for the period from May to July, 2004, basing on the previous consumption charges upto April, 2004 or basing on the units consumed from 07.07.2004 to 22.07.2004, to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity supply to S.C.No.60288, besides damages and costs.

3.         Opposite parties filed counter stating that the complainant is not a consumer, as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties.  The meter got tested in the presence of complainant’s husband and the test report showed that the meter creeping was ‘nil’.  Opposite parties submits that still the meter is in sealed condition after testing in the presence of the complainant’s husband.  When the meter is functioning accurately, bills cannot be revised as per the terms and conditions of supply.  There is no deficiency of service.  Hence, the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

4.         Basing on the pleadings put forth by both parties and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.8, the District Forum opined that the complainant has no ‘locus standi’ to file the complaint and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.

6.         The brief point that falls for consideration is whether the complainant has locus standi to file this complaint or not?

7.         Heard both the counsel.  The learned counsel for the complainant drew our attention to the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Electricity Act, 2003.  Sec.2 Clause (15) of the Electricity Act defined “Consumer” as hereunder:

“Consumer” means any person who is supplied with electricity for his own use by a licensee or the Government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this Act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of a licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.” 

Keeping in view the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Electricity Act, there is no dispute in regard to the fact that the premises of the complainant herein has been enjoying electricity service connection and the bills were also being paid by the appellant/complainant herein.  Hence, we are remanding this matter to the District Forum having concluded that the appellant/complainant herein is a ‘Consumer’ and has locus standi to file this complaint. 

8.         In the result, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum with a direction to conduct denovo enquiry and dispose of the matter expeditiously.  Both parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 10.07.2009 without a fresh notice being served on them. We reiterate that we did not express any of our opinion in this regard.  The appellant is entitled to withdraw the amount which was deposited before this Commission.                   

 MEMBER    

MEMBER

DT: 11.06.2009