BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 22nd day of May, 2006.
C.C.No.17/2006
C. John Barnabas, M.A.BL., Advocate, S/o C.Devadanam, aged about 36 years,
H.No.19-2, Sangaiahpeta, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. Junior Accounts Officer, Electrical Revenue Office,
A.P. Trans Co., Kota Street, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
2. Assistant Engineer (Electrical)
A.P. Trans Co., Sangaiahpeta, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. C.J.Barnabas, Advocate, Nandikotkur for complainant and Sri. D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 and 2, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri. R.Ramachandra Reddy, Hon’ble Member)
1. This CC of the complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a practicing advocate and member of Kurnool Bar Association, Kurnool. He is residing in a rented house bearing the H.No.19-2, Sangaiahpeta at Nandikotkur which is very near to A.P. Trans Co Office at Nandikotkur. He is a consumer of electricity service No.4600 in the name of his house owner J.Sivaramappa who is residing at Nandyal. He is a regular payee of the electricity bill at Jr. Accounts Officer, Electrical Revenue Office, Kota Street, Nandikotkur for the month of December 2005 and he paid the said electricity bill on 10-1-2006 only. But on 9-2-2006 when he went to Hyderabad, the Asst. Engineer (Electrical) and his assistants disconnected his house electrical connection even though he paid the electricity bill on 10-1-2006 itself. In previous also he paid electricity bill regularly. On 10-2-2006 when he was at Hyderabad on a serious work, his wife (M.AMBAMMA) who is working in Velugu Project, Indira Kranthi Patham, DRDA at Atmakur, came to Nandikotkur and observed that the electrical service has been disconnected. Then she urgently informed him over phone that the house electrical service connection has been disconnected. He immediately reached Nandikotkur with mental agony and his wife spend that time lonely in the darkness with fear. Then he approached A.E. (Electrical) immediately over phone. Whereas the said officer has replied him that the J.A.O, Electrical Revenue Office informed him to disconnect his electrical service as he has not paid the December 2005 bill. In that darkness at about 8 PM he searched for the December 2005 electricity bill which he has already paid and found it and immediately approached A.E.A.P. Trans Co Office and shown the receipt of the December 2005 electricity bill and pleaded him to connect his house electricity connection immediately. On that night we spend the time with mental agony and so much inconvenience. The assistants of A.E. (Electrical) came to his house and reconnected the electricity connection on the above said request only. The said attitude of the opposite parties even though the electricity bill for the month of December 2005 has been paid well in time i.e. on 10-1-2006 which was due to be paid on or before 19-1-2006, certainly amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to order the opposite parties that they have to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and costs.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant the opposite party No.2’s counsel appeared on its behalf and contested the case by filing its written version, the opposite party No.1 adopted the written version of opposite party No.2 admitting the main facts of this case but the compensation claimed at Rs.50,000/- is fanciful and does not stand to reason.
4. In the written version the opposite party No.2 admits that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and he is regular in payment of bills and that he has paid the said bill on 10-1-2006 and that the wife of the complainant informed them about the disconnection while he was at Hyderabad. Further the complainant approached this opposite party No.2 and showed the bill and the supply was restored immediately. But the compensation claimed at Rs.50,000/- is fanciful and does not stand to reason. Further this opposite party No.2 submits that the bills are prepared and collected by private agency i.e. B.N. & Company. The defaulters list is prepared by the said agency. By mistake the said agency has noted the wrong service number which lead to disconnection. But at the time of disconnection no body was present in the complainant’s house. Had the receipt been shown the service could not have been disconnected. Immediately after the complainant approached this opposite party No.2 the service was restored. The accounting agency was served with notice about the said discrepancy. The accounting agency has given reply regretting the mistake, attributing it to wrong feeding the computers. The mistake is not willful but it is due to workload. This opposite party No.2 sincerely regrets for the mistake and has already made amends by immediately restoring the supply and taking steps by informing the higher authorities. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
5. In substantiation of the case averments while the complainant side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case. The opposite party No.2 filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defense. Further the complainant and the opposite party No.2 exchanged between them interrogatories and their replies along with the written arguments. Whereas the complainant side relied on one citation for the appreciation of its case.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite parties towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought?
7. The Ex.A1 is an electricity bill for Rs.66.12ps rounded of to Rs.66/- for the month of December 2005 for the service No.4600 issued on 6-1-2006 at 10.18 pertaining to the owner of the house, wherein the complainant is residing by paying rent. The said bill contains due date as 19-1-2006 and further under note it is mentioned that the payment of due date attracts sur charge. But no where mentioned that the date of disconnection of electricity. If the bill is not paid before due date i.e. 19-1-2006. The Ex.A2 is the receipt No.R.C.R.C. No.737971 (Sl.No.515902) dated 10-1-2006 for electricity charges for the month of December 2005 amounting to Rs.66/- issued by the A.P. C.P.D.C. Ltd., - Operation – Circle – Kurnool of Nandikotkur distribution towards service connection No.4600. This Ex.A2 clearly shows that the complainant paid the electricity charges of Rs.66/- for the month of December 2005 on 10-1-2006 i.e. well in advance of the due date i.e. 19-1-2006. Even though the electricity bill paid as mentioned above the opposite party No.1 has disconnected the electricity supply to the residence of the complainant on 9-2-2006 which caused inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant and his family. The plea taken by opposite party No.2 on behalf of opposite party No.1 in its written arguments in support of his written version and sworn affidavit that bills are prepared and collected by private Agency i.e. B.N.& Company. The defaulters list is prepared by the said Agency. By mistake the said agency has noted the wrong service number which lead to disconnection. Further the opposite party No.2 states that at the time of disconnection no body was present in the house and had the receipt shown, the service could not have been disconnected. This is very ridiculous, when he himself (opposite party No.2) admits that no body was present in the house, how the question of showing the receipt to the authorities who have come to disconnect the electricity arise. Further, the opposite party No.2 admits the mistake of the agency for the above said act of disconnection of electricity and the said accounting agency was served with notice about the said discrepancy and inturn the said agency has given reply regretting the said mistake, attributing it to wrong feeding the computers and also it is due to work load. This type of explanations for the negligencies of the public authorities concerned are routine and as such they cannot escape the legitimate and statutory obligations in discharging their duties. Further, the complainant has no privy and nothing to do with the commissions and omissions of the said agency. Under the guise of the above excuse the exercise of powers of the said public functionary results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. The complainant in support of his case cited the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court 2004 SAR (Civil) 583 which is relevant in the attitude of the said public functionaries and responsibilities towards their consumers in discharging their legitimate and statutory duties.
8. The above said conduct of opposite party No.1 certainly amounts to deficiency of service and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as the bonafidies of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
9. In the result, and in sum up of the above discussion the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and to pay Rs.500/- towards costs of this case and the opposite parties is granted one month time for the compliance of this order. In default, the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay the supra stated award amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of said default till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 22nd day of May, 2006.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Demand bill for Electricity Charge of 12/05 from Rs.66.12ps
Ex.A2 Receipt for Electricity Charges for Rs.66/- R.C.R.C. No.737971 dated
10-1-2006.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri. C.J. Barnabas, Advocate, Nandikotkur
- Sri. D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
