BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.882 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.80 OF 2004 DISTRICT FORUM, NELLORE
Between:
Narapareddy Chaandra Sekhar Reddy
S/o.Krishna Reddy
Aged about 59 years,
R/o.Mypadu, Nellore District. Appellant/
Complainant
A N D
1. Superintending Engineer (Operation)
A.P.S.E.P.D.C.Ltd.,
Vidyut Bhavan, Nellore.
2. The Assistant Accounts Officer,
Electricity Revenue Office (Rurals)
Kotamitta, Nellore.
Respondents/
Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s V.Roopesh Kumar Redy
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.O.Manohar Reddy
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K.SATYANAND MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***
The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal assailing the order of the District Forum.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
The complainant was enjoying agricultural service connection prior to 30-12-2000 on which date he decided to change it into fish pond service connection. In that connection, he claimed to have paid the entire agricultural arrears amounting to Rs.3,820/- on 4-11-2000 under bill No.78601 issued on the above said agricultural connection. Subsequently his service connection was disconnected on the ground that he had to pay arrears of Rs.3,200/- for the FPSC No.353 for the months of 6/01 and 7/01. The complainant therefore approached the second opposite party, Accounts Officer, and showed the bills. Thereupon the service connection was restored on the ground that the bills had come to be issued by mistake. However, the service connection was again disconnected on the ground that he was an arrears to a tune of Rs.6,500/- for the month of November, 2001. The complainant claimed to have again enquired with the second respondent’s office but they did not give any reply. The complainant claimed to have paid all the bills regularly without fail from the date of change of service connection from ASC to FPSC. The respondents stopped further bills from November, 2001. The office of the second respondent however told him that there were no arrears of the month of 7/01 but in case he desired to get the service connection, he had to pay the bill from the date of disconnection. The respondents office created the scene as if they fixed a meter for the disconnected service and taken the meter reading and sent a bill though they have not installed the meter and recorded the readings as evidenced by the statement of the line man and the Assistant Engineer concerned on 5-12-2003 and therefore the said bill was obviously false. Thereafter the complainant claimed to have approached the respondents and requested them to go through all these facts and restore FPSC 353 but they did not take any action and insisted upon payment of the bills. Aggrieved by the indifferent attitude and negligence marked by inaction, the complainant claimed Rs.5 lakhs towards damages besides the restoration of the service connection FPSC 353 immediately as also costs and consequential reliefs.
The second respondent filed a counter which came to be adopted by the first respondent. It is therefore the case of the respondents that originally the said service connection 353 was released for agricultural purposes. Later it was changed for purpose of fish pond with effect from 30-12-2000. It is their case that before conversion, the complainant was in arrears to a tune of Rs.3,820/- towards consumption charges. The said arrears were paid by the complainant in the month of March, 2002. Later on the complainant did not pay any amount towards consumption charges from May, 2002 to May, 2004 which was under fish pond’s service. It is how the complainant fell in arrears to a tune of Rs.11,037/- upto to May, 2004. He did not choose to pay the said bills assessed as per metering service tariff. As he did not pay the bills, the contention of the consumer that bills were being issued on slab rates was not correct. There was no discrimination.
In support of his case, the complainant relied upon Exs.A1 to A25 backed by his own affidavit. On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any evidence nor did they file any affidavit. However both sides filed written arguments before the District Forum.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the District Forum concluded that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service and therefore declined to give any relief and dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal urging that the respondents failed to show that the complainant was in arrears. The District Forum failed to see the statements given by the Assistant Engineer and line man. The District Forum failed to appreciate the evidence in Exs.A1 and A2 as also Ex.A22, Certificate given by the Sarpanch, Mypadu Grama Panchayat. The District Forum failed to see that the respondents did not prove the arrears.
Heard both sides.
The point for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum under appeal?
This is a peculiar case in which the complainant disputed the so called disconnection and the arrears that led to such disconnection on the basis of an endorsement made by the Assistant Engineer borne out from Ex.A25 and also the endorsement of the lineman containing some facts favourable to the complainant without actually taking steps under the terms and conditions of supply of Electricity. The complaint did not spell out specifically as to what was the order of the opposite parties impugned in the complaint. It is however discernable from the random averments in the complaint that the complainant appeared to have been aggrieved by Ex.A2. Ex.A2 is a letter issued by the opposite party No.2, Accounts Officer, demanding arrears from May, 2002 to July, 2003 aggregating to Rs.9,000/- and odd. Ex.A1 is the reply given by him to opposite party No.2. It appears Ex.A1 was routed through the line man and the Assistant Engineer. As Ex.A1 was illegible perhaps another Xerox copy of the same is marked as Ex.A25. Ex.A25 contains the statements of the line man and the Assistant Engineer to the following effect:
Endt.No.AE10/Mypadu/F ID No.498/038-12-2003
The FPSC No.353, Mypadu is not fixed with meter as the arrears
pending on that service at the time of fixing of meters to existing
aqua services. There is no culture under this pond for the past two
years and the service is under disconnection long back. As the
consumer wants the service C.C. bill may be issued for the above
service as per the departmental procedure. By oversight for the
above FPSC No.353 were given readings formats but it is not the
case in practical scenario’.
It is therefore clear from the Assistant Engineer’s endorsement dated 8-12-2003 that the demand made in Ex.A2 was not factually correct as the Assistant Engineer clearly admitted that the service connection in question became defunct being under disconnection from long back and the consumption bills came to be issued for the above service as per the departmental procedure. The Assistant Engineer clearly admitted that by oversight for the above FPSC number 353 were given readings in the reading formats but it was not the case in practical scenario. No doubt the above admission on the part of the Assistant Engineer sets at naught the demand contained in Ex.A5. However, it also brings to the surface that the service connection was disconnected since two years prior thereto which takes us back to somewhere in December, 2001. That means even by the date of the complaint even according to his own evidence, the disconnection was more than two years old. When once the service was already disconnected it is incomprehensible as to how he could pray under relief No.2 the restoration of the service connection immediately. Even according to his own averments in the complaint, the disconnection was effected some where in November, 2001, this is evident from paragraph 4 of the complaint which reads as follows:
‘And again the respondents disconnected the service connection of
the complainant on the ground that he is in arrears of Rs.6,500/-
for the month of 11/01. The complainant enquired in the 2nd respondent’s office but they have not given any reply to the complainant. The complainant paid all the bills regularly without fail from the date of the change of the service connection from ASC to FPSC. The respondents stopped further bills from 11/01. The 2nd respondent’s office told to the complainant that there are no arrears for the month of 7/01, but if the complainant desires the service connection he has to pay the bill from the date of disconnection.
On account of the negligence done by the 2nd respondent’s office the complainant suffered like this’.
The endorsements on the obverse of Ex.A1 that is equal to Ex.A25 extracted above confirm that the service connection remained defunct since about November, 2001. The complainant relied upon Ex.A1 that is equal to A25 representation given by him on 29-11-2003 when the disconnection was effected two years prior to that, the initiative taken by the complainant is not borne out from any evidence except Ex.A1 but surely Ex.A1 is belated and Ex.A1 did not pray for reconnection but it was sent only to cancel the demand contained in Ex.A2. Thus the complainant had put up with the disconnection and did not show any initiative on his part to get it reconnected. All of a sudden, he made a request in this complaint for reconnection. As a matter of fact, it was only prayed as relief No.2. As relief No.1 he wanted a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for dereliction of duty and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This is clearly vague and the claim itself is trumpery in nature. If really he was serious about restoring the service connection, he would not have slept over the disconnection for two years even by the date of the endorsement of the Assistant Engineer on Ex.A1 = A25. Thus the complainant miserably failed in making out a case of deficiency against the opposite parties and thus we do not see any infirmity in the judgement of the District Forum which rightly dismissed the complaint.
For the reasons stated above, 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.07-10-2009