BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1572 OF 2008 AGAINST C.D.NO.71OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM, SRIKAKULAM
Between:
1. The Accounts Officer,
Electricity Revenue Office
A.P.E.P.D.CL.,
Palakonda.
2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer,
Electricity Office, A.P.E.D.C.L.
Rajam.
3. The Superintendent Engineer, Assessments
A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Srikakulam. Appellants/
Opposite parties
And
Yenuguthala Venkata Ramana, S/o.Surapu
Naidu, Balakavivalasa, Munakalavalasa Village
Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.O.Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent:- Respondent served.
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum assailing its order imposing liability against them.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
The complainant is the son of the registered consumer of electricity bearing service No.4 of Munakalavalasa Village. Initially the opposite party No.1 lodged a complaint against the mother of the complainant for an offence of pilferage of energy wherein he fixed the compounding fee at Rs.2,000/- and also the estimated assessment amount at Rs.15,000/-. The complainant therefore filed a Writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court was pleased to pass orders on 9-1-2002 directing the A.P.Transco authorities to pass final assessment within 8 weeks and also ordered to restore the power supply in the meanwhile. Accordingly the opposite parties restored the power on the complainant making a payment of Rs.3,526/- However, they disconnected the service connection on 5-2-2005 without a prior notice. It seems the opposite parties filed a charge sheet before the I Addl. Dist. Judge, Srikakulam but ultimately it ended in compounding of the offence on payment of the requisite compounding fee. In terms of the High court order, the opposite parties passed the final assessment notice fixing the assessment of loss of energy at Rs.8,655/- by its proceedings dated 21-2-2004 but subsequently the opposite parties disconnected the power supply on 5-2-2005 without any prior notice. As such the complainant questioned the actions of the opposite parties characterizing them as signifying deficiency in service.
The opposite parties filed a combined counter contending that the D.E. passed a final assessment notice demanding Rs.8,655/- on 21-2-2004, but the complainant failed to pay the said amount and even though he utilized the power supply till the date of receiving the final assessment order after the restoration of the supply, he did not even pay the consumption charges accrued during the interregnum. It is how according to the opposite parties the arrears mounted upto 35,267/- and the balance of arrears outstanding due to the opposite parties stood at Rs.32,009/- for which a notice of demand was rightly issued by the opposite parties. Thus it is contended that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
The complainant sought various reliefs: The District Forum took up the consumer dispute for enquiry. During the course of enquiry, the complainant filed his own affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A14. The opposite parties also got filed an affidavit on their behalf and relied upon Exs.B1 to B5.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum gave several findings in favour of the complainant to the following effect.
‘As per the original of Ex.B5, the Divisional Engineer assessed the loss of Rs.8,655/- in respect of the service connection in question, but the opposite party No.1 has issued the original of Ex.A2 demand for Rs.32,009/- without any basis and inspite of the representation made by the complainant under the original of Ex.A1, the opposite party No.1 and 2 have not chosen to restrict their demand as per the original of Ex.B5 final assessment of the Divisional Engineer, Assessments, Visakhapatnam and so we hold that, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 and the complainant is not liable to pay the demand of Rs.32,009/- as claimed by the opposite party No.1 under the original of Ex.A2 and so we set aside the demand letter dated 28-1-2005 issued by opposite party No.1 for an amount of Rs.32,009/- and direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to restore power supply to service connection No.4 of the complainant, but in fact, the opposite parties have restored power supply as per the interim orders dated 31-3-2005 made in IA 184/2005 on condition of paying half of the demand of Rs.32,009/- and after the complainant has paid half of the demand of Rs.32,009/- the opposite parties have restored power supply but that amount has to be adjusted towards the balance of the assessment of Rs.8,655/- after deducting the amount covered by Ex.A7 and to adjust the balance towards future consumption charges of the complainant’.
While giving a finding of the opposite parties being guilty of deficiency in service, the District Forum granted relief to the complainant in the following terms:
In the result, an award is passed in favour of the complainant
Sri Y.Venkata Ramana of Balakavivalasa Village Regidi Amadalavalasa
Mandalam and against the opposite parties 1 to 3 i.e. 1) The Accounts
Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Palakonda, 2) The Asst. Divisional Engineer, Electricity office, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Rajam and 3) The Superintendent Engineer, Assessments, Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited, Srikakulam directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to set aside the demand issued by opposite party No.1 for Rs.32,009/- through a letter dated 28-1-2005 not to disconnect power supply on the ground that the complainant has not paid the demand issued by the opposite party No.1 through a letter dated 28-1-2005 to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation and to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation expenses including the advocate’s fee of Rs.500/-. We further direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to adjust the amount paid by the complainant as per the order in I.A.No.184/2005 dated 31-3-2005 towards the balance of the demand as per Ex.B5 final assessment proceedings of the D.E. Assessments, Visakhapatnam and to adjust the balance towards future consumption charges of the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 to comply with the above said award to the complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties filed the present appeal urging the following grounds:
The District Forum ought to have noted with seriousness that the loss of energy due to the pilferage of energy was to a tune of Rs.8,605/- and it became final as there was no appeal against the said assessment order. The District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant ought to have availed statutory remedy. In this context, in the grounds of appeal, the opposite parties wrongly relied upon Section 42 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 although the cause of action pertained to the period from 27-8-2001 to 27-8-2002 on its own showing as set out in para 2 of the grounds of appeal which in fact is more than clear not only from the pleadings of both sides but also entire case record including the inspection report and the provisional assessment notice marked as Ex.B2.
Heard both sides.
The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
A perusal of the entire record and the reasoning given by the District Forum makes it abundantly clear that the relief granted by the District Forum does not suffer from any infirmities. However, it is necessary to add a few more reasons only to fortify the order of the District Forum which in itself deserves to be confirmed. As a matter of fact the whole cause of action commenced in this matter admittedly with the inspection and the issuance of the provisional assessment notice in pursuance thereof. The issuance of the provisional notice, it appears, was associated with the disconnection of service. As such the complainant carried the matter immediately to the High Court and the High Court gave him relief directing the opposite parties to swiftly pass an assessment order within six weeks and also to restore power pending passing of the orders of final assessment. The proceedings obviously culminated in passing the final assessment order dated 24-2-2004 and marked as Ex.B5 on the side of the opposite parties and as Ex.A3 on the side of the complainant. As a matter of fact by the date of Ex.A3, the complainant had already deposited an amount which exceeded the amount quantified by way of final assessment as per Ex.A3, which is equivalent of Ex.B5. So the proceedings have come to a conclusion with the passing of Ex.B5. Subsequent thereto by virtue of Ex.A2 dated 28-1-2005 which in fact constitutes the impugned order in these proceedings, the opposite parties demanded of the consumer to pay an amount of Rs.32,009/-. When the amount is definitely different from the one arrived at by the opposite parties in the proceedings initiated against the consumer, it is but reasonable and also incumbent upon the opposite parties to either justify the larger amount demanded by virtue of Ex.A2 or by relent the mistake and make amends on their own. However, it is apparent from the averments in the counter that the said amount was inclusive not only of the final assessment amount but also the arrears of bills that mounted against the complainant during the interregnum between the interim orders of the High Court and subsequent thereto till the date of passing of the final assessment. In other words, it is the case of the opposite parties that the amount represented by Ex.A2 is made up of not only the amount by way of final assessment but also the CC charges from August, 1992 to December, 2004. There is absolutely no evidence tendered by them to prove those arrears by resorting to their own accounts as after all they relied upon only five documents of which Ex.B1 was merely the copy of inspection report, Ex.B2 is the provisional notice, Ex.B3 is the copy of Ex.A5 i.e. the order in the Writ petitions. Ex.B4 is the attested xerox copy of grounds of appeal preferred by the complainant before the Addl. Divisional Engineer, Operation , Rajam and finally Ex.B5 is nothing but the order making the final assessment by the D.E. When so much of litigation ran between the complainant and the opposite parties, the opposite parties cannot afford to issue a huge demand of Rs.32,009/- without any particulars as also supportive documents. Even though the opposite parties maintained that the said amount comprised of the subsequent arrears, the complainant filed atleast two bunches of receipts marked as Exs.A13 and A14. Ofcourse they are not of much relevance as they are receipts pertaining to the period subsequent to December, 2004. Ex.A12 which is also a copy of Ex.A2 alluded to non payment of cc charges from August 1992 to December, 2004. It is a letter addressed by the Asst. Accounts officer, Electricity Revenue Office to the consumer. It did not give any details of consumption and moreover it reads as if there were arrears accumulated for more than 12 years. At the time of provisional assessment or inspection or earlier there to there was no whisper about the arrears atleast till that date. As such, the arbitrary language of Ex.A2 that is equal to Ex.A12 cannot be accepted merely by its face value in the absence of any details justifying the demand, which undoubtedly comprises amounts that were not referred to till this litigation erupted. Thus the way the department handled the issue smacks of deficiency in service. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the District Forum cannot be faulted. Thus we are firmly of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal.
Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-
President
Sd/
MEMBER.
Sd/-
MEMBER.
.
JM DT.09-10-2009
