F.A.No.1087/2005   against  C.D.No.56/2004 ,  DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,Kurnool.

Between:

1.The Assistant Engineer (Electricals)

    Central Section Division Office,

    Railway Station Road, Kurnool.

2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer,

     Operation /Division Office,

     Railway Station Road, Kurnool.

3. The Assistant Divisional  Engineer

    (Electricals) , Operation/Division office,

     Railway Station  Road,

     Kurnool.                                                                                         ....Appellants/

                                                                                                                 Opp.parties

               And

The Ideal Educational Society,

Kurnool, 10/130 Masoom Basha Dargah,

Kurnool represented by its Secretary-

Cum-Correspondent Sri Azeez Rahi.                                          .... Respondent/

                                                                                                               Complainant 

 Counsel for the appellants               :        M/s  V.Ajay Kumar   

Counsel for the respondent             :            Party in person                                       

  CORAM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE   MEMBER

                                                        AND

                 SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                           WEDNESSDAY, THE  NINETEENTH   DAY  OF MARCH,

               TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order:(Per Sri G.Bhoopathi Reddy, Hon’ble Member)

                                                *****

     This is an appeal filed by the  appellants/opp.parties under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986   to set aside the order passed by the District Forum, Kurnool in C.D.No.56/2004  dt.10.12.2004

     The respondent herein is the   complainant before the District Forum filed a complaint under Section 12 of  Consumer Protection  Act,1986 to direct the opp.parties not to club the electricity bills of the  service connections bearing nos.1323 and 83354 and to issue separate bills to the same connections and  to revise the  bills issued  so far and to refund the excess amount  collected, and to pay  of  Rs.20,000/-   for mental agony suffered and costs of the complaint.

     The case of the complainant is  as follows:

 The complainant is  the registered   educational society running in the name and style of Ideal English High School represented by its Secretary  cum Correspondent.   The said society has taken two separate  buildings  on lease bearing door nos. 11/110 and 11/109   owned by S.Abdul Azeez and H.A.Sajida Begum, Zaheer Ahmed and Shahina  Begum respectively . The said buildings are having electric service connection bearing nos. 83354 and 1323.   The opp.parties  in the month of March 2003  clubbed the above two service connections relating to two different buildings .    Thereafter the complainant addressed a letter to the  opp.parties requesting not to club the said two service connections and to revise the bills already issued . The opp.parties issued a notice dt.27.5.2004 stating that as per the directives of the Commission, the multiple connections for the same category and purpose of use in a single premises is prohibited and therefore requested the complainant to retain only one connection.  Inspite of several requests and legal notice the opposite parties did not issue separate electricity bills for  the above mentioned service connections.   Alleging deficiency in service the complainant approached District Forum to direct the opp.parties  not to club the electricity bills of the  service connections bearing nos.1323 and 83354 and to issue separate bills to the said connections, to revise bills issued  so far and to refund the excess amount  collected,  to pay Rs.20,000/-   towards   compensation for mental agony suffered and costs of the complaint.

      The opp.parties filed  written version stating  that the complainant society is running school in one building with two door numbers bearing H.No.11/109 and H.No.11/110 owned by S.Azeed Rahim  and Sajida Begum , having the service connections bearing nos. 83354 and 1323  and separate bills were issued. From April, 2003  onwards two meters were clubbed and a single bill was issued and the said bills were paid regularly till 13.4.2004 . The service connection no.1323  was released 40 years back under category II to the complainant’s building in two floors and the said building was purchased by Abdul Azeez Rafi (correspondent of the ideal school)   and Sajida Begum.    In 1992 Abdul Azeez has put forth an application requesting for supply of electricity for domestic purpose for  D.No.11/110 and  S.C.No.83354  was sanctioned.  . As per the directions   of the Board the category of supply to SC 83354 and 1323  was found to be same and in the same premises ,hence both the services were clubbed and  single bill is issued.  There is  no deficiency in service on their part. The dispute relating to tariff fixation is not a dispute   within the ambit of C.P.Act 1986 .They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

      In support of the complainant’s claim  he has filed evidence affidavit and documents  Exs.A1 to A8 .    The opp.parties  also filed  evidence affidavit and documents Ex.s.B1 to B3. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings   held that there was deficiency in service  on the part of the opp.parties and  allowed the complaint directing   the opp.parties not to club the two service connections bearing Nos.1323 & 83354 , occupied by complainant’s school as owned by two different persons and to issue separate bills to the supra said service connections as per terms and conditions of supply within a month of receipt of the order.

     Aggrieved by the said order the appellants/opp.parties  filed this appeal  contending that as per the directions of A.P.Electricity Regulatory   Commission which is the statutory authority under the A.P.Electricity Reforms Act,1998  they are directed to maintain only one service connection for one premises  and as the complainant school is being run in the total premises  only  one connection is to be sanctioned. There is no deficiency in service on their  part   The Dist.Forum ought to have seen that  clubbing of bills is an administrative act of the opp.party company  and there is no financial loss or damage of any sort  to the complainant  and hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction . They prayed to set aside the order of the District Forum and allow the appeal. 

     There is no dispute with regard to the  complainant has taken two buildings on lease  and the said buildings are having two electrical service connections.   As per the  documentary evidence filed by the complainant  goes to show that  the owners of the said buildings  have obtained separate service connections  and the complainant paid the bills as per the reading recorded by the opp.party. In the month of March 2003 the opp.party   clubbed two service  connections and issued one bill  and other service connection was disconnected. There is no denial by the  appellant with regard to the lease of two separate buildings  are concerned. The house bearing no.11/110  is owned by S.Abdul Azeez and H.A.Sajida Begum  and  D.No. 11/109   is owned by Zaheer Ahmed and Shahina Begum  having two service connections bearing nos. 83354 and 1323 . The appellants contended that the dispute raised by the complainant is not  a consumer dispute  and the  complainant has not impleaded necessary parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed  The respondent contended that the Chief General Manager is not a necessary party to the C.D. proceedings. The submission made by the appellants is concerned we have gone through  Ex.B1   proceedings  issued by the Chief General Manager( commercial) dt.1.4.2004   wherein it is stated Superintending Engineers/Operation are requested to  collect  certificates from the field officers certifying that all the services in their respective jurisdiction have been inspected and that multiple services existing in the same  premises have been removed duly following the procedural guidelines issued in this  regard.  and superintending  engineers are requested to verify and submit the same  to the office . The  Chief General Manager (Commercial)  is not necessary party.  The appellants have not taken this plea before the District Forum At the appellate stage this plea was taken. There is no necessity to implead  Chief General Manager (commercial)  as party to the  proceedings.  The appellants further  contended that the dispute raised by the  complainant is not a consumer dispute . The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable. We have gone through all the  documentary evidence. The complainant has addressed a letter Ex.A1   dt.13.5.2004. As there was no response from the opp.party a legal notice  Ex.A7 was issued . Even after receiving the legal notice the opp.party failed to give  reply  .   Ex.s.A3 to A6 are the bills issued by the opp.parties  . The dispute raised by the complainant is a consumer dispute.  The complait filed before the District Forum is maintainable.  The appellants further submit that as per the directions of A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission they have followed the instructions and the complaint cannot be entertained before the  District Forum.  The submission made by the  appellants is not sustainable. The appellants further submit that the  category of service connection is fixed basing on the fact that whether the premises being used for the purpose of domestic or commercial and  as  the school was  being run  in the total premises   it has to be  taken into consideration  as one  category  and one connection. The submission made by the appellants is not sustainable  On the other hand the  documentary  evidence filed by the complainant goes to show that the owners  of the premises has obtained  separate service connections and they are paying the bills separately  the opp.party has clubbed the two service connections into one service connection , on account of that the complainant has suffered lot and  as two service connections are clubbed together  bill amount also been excessive one.  Ex.B2 is  notice issued by  Assistant Engineer/operation  stating that on inspection    he  find that the premises bearing no.11/109  availing service connections no. 1323 category II and  S.C.No.83354  category II.  Ex.B3 is inspection report. As per the inspection report discloses that the service is released for domestic purpose   but during the time of inspection the service is being used for non domestic purpose     and another service also existing in the same premises being used for school purpose  i.e.non domestic purpose .     Even  the inspection report was also not supplied by the opp.parties   to the complainant.    .The District Forum has properly appreciated all the documentary evidence  and given finding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties .  The appellants further submit that clubbing of bills   is administrative act  and there is no financial loss or damage to the complainant .   such  dispute ought not to have been entertained by the District Forum.  The submission made by the appellants is  not sustainable.  Clubbing of the two bills is not an administrative act.   As per the documentary evidence filed by theopp.parties  itself goes to show that they  simply followed the guidelines issued by the higher authorities and clubbed two service connections into one and issued bills.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties . The District Forum has properly appreciated the evidence on record.  There are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the order of  the District Forum . 

     In the result appeal is dismissed .  Order of the District Forum is confirmed.                                                                             

                                    PRESIDENT      LADY MEMBER    MALE MEMBER

                                                                  DT.18.3.2008

PM*