COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.

 F.A.No.941/2006  against C.C.No.8/2006, Dist.Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist.  .

Between:

T.Devappa, S/o.Anjappa, aged about   years,

H.No.17-1-382/2/1, Nagarjuna Colony,

Champa pet, Hyderabad , R.R.Dist.                        …Appellant/

                                                                          Complainant

          And

1.DIVNL Engineer/Elec.

   Sub-Division Saroornagar,

   A.P.C.P.Discom, Saroornagar,

   Hyderabad. 

2. The Asst. DIVNL. Engineer Elec. (CPCDL)

    Champa pet, Saroornagar,

    Hyderabad, R.R.Dist.                                               …Respondents/

                                                                          Opposite parties

Counsel for the appellant     :   M/s.V.Gowrisankara Rao  

Counsel  for the respondents        :    Mr.Vatsavayi Ajay Kumar          

CORAM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO,PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND,HON’BLE MEMBER

                 WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE,  

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order : (Per Smt. M.Shreesha ,  Hon’ble   Member. )

                                                    ***

            Aggrieved by the dismissal order in C.C.No.8/2006  on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy Dist. the complainant  preferred  this appeal.

        The complainant is the owner of A   house bearing no.17-1-382/2/1  situated at  Nagarjuna Colony , Champapet , Hyderabad and he  applied  for  Electricity Service connection to  his house to opposite parties  vide registration no.CN 9251864 dt. 6.7.2004  and after a long lapse of time they have issued  a new meter connection on 4.6.2005  vide SC bearing no.210306016  and the same is functioning from 5.6.2005.  The complainant  received a huge bill for Rs.20,076/-  which shows wrong units  and usage charge including surcharges, the reading mentioned in the bill is  also not tallying and there is miscalculation of meter reading as well as  the bill amount.  The reading starts from 01(one), but however, it is mentioned as 230 units.  The complainant  made a representation to the opposite parties dt.22.7.2005   and brought the said facts  to the notice of  the opposite parties,  but no action was taken. The  Opposite Parties disconnected the power supply to the house of the complainant in the month of August,2005  due to which  inconvenience and hardship was caused to him and his family members.  The complainant requested   the opposite parties several times to   receive the  actual amount and  restore the power supply to his house, but  opposite parties demanded to pay  the entire bill amount.  The complainant got issued  a legal notice dt.27.9.2005  demanding to restore the power supply  for which no reply was given.   The action  of  the opposite parties in demanding to pay the bill without showing any sympathy and disconnecting the power supply not only amounts to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice.   Hence the complaint,  seeking direction to   the opposite parties to   restore the power supply to SC.No.210306016, to issue  revised & correct bill for the month of July 2005  vide SC bearing no.210306016, to pay damages of Rs.20,000/-  towards the mental agony and tension and  to pay costs of  Rs.5000/-         

         Though notice served  to Opposite Parties they did not appear and hence they were set exparte. 

        The District Forum based on the evidence adduced    and pleadings put forward i.e.   Exs.A1 to A5  dismissed the complaint  stating that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on  behalf   of the  opposite parties.

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

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant is a resident of house no.17-1-382/2/1  situated at Nagarjuna Colony, Hyderabad that complainant applied for a new service  connection on 6.7.2004  which was registered as CN-9251864.  It is the complainant’s case after  a long gap i.e. only on 4.6.2005  a new meter connetion was given to the complainant’s premises.   It is the further  case of the complainant that the very first bill amount was Rs.20,076/-  and the reading started from  opening units as 230.  The complainant made a representation on 22.7.2005  but to his surprise, opposite parties without taking  further action disconnected his power supply to the service connection bearing no. 210306016 in August, 2005. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 27.9.2005   but he did nto receive any reply.  The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party filed his written arguments contending that their line man visited the premises of the complainant on 10.7.2004   and noticed meter no.05026073/5.29-Land disc meter (VXL)  Meter  reading is  02863  and subsequently he visited the premises  on 21.7.2004  and found  this  meter was missing.   This meter was unbilled and the same was informed by the Addl.Asst.Engineer (operation)  to the Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation)  vide their letter  dt.21.7.2004  filed here before this Commission as Ex.B2. The learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that  a police complaint was also given with respect  to missing meter and in that place a single phase energy meter was replaced  vide Ex.B3.  The Addl.Asst. Engineer of Champapet Section had written a letter dt.20.7.2004  to the  A.A.O.  requesting him to make a bill for un billed meter showing the reading  as 02863  and subsequently a  0bill was raised for an amount of Rs.20,076/-  on  12.7.2005.  It is also stated in the written arguments that the complainant’s brother  given an undertaking  on 20.7.2004  that he would pay the entire amount towards the missing meter   hence there is no  deficiency in service  on their behalf.  In Ex.A1 letter dt. 22.7.2005   addressed to AE (Operation) , Champapet division, the complainant had stated that he had applied for two electricity  meters on July 2004 and the two connections were given on 4.6.2005, his brother had got Rs.1026/-  for consumption of 105 units  but the complainant received a bill   for Rs.20,076/-  and the reading instead  of starting from ‘1’  unit  started from ‘230’ units .  He also got issued a legal notice on  27.9.2005   vide Ex.A2  calling upon the opposite party  to rectify the meter  and also  revise the bills. But there is no response from the opposite party.  The complainant deposited Rs.4000/-  on 3.8.2006   before this Commission  seeking restoration  of power supply.   A perusal of the bills Ex.A4   shows that the first bill i.e.    dt. 12.7.2005  for  an amount  of Rs.20,076/-, wherein the billable units are  2863.    A subsequent bill also shows  the units as  47  and amount as  Rs.20,821/-.  The next bill also shows the units as  47  and this is dt.11.11.2005 for an amount of Rs.21,844/-.  Subsequent bill dt.11.12.2005  for an amount of Rs.22,352/-   including  the arrears of  previous bills also shows the units as  47 .  The last bill filed by the complainant is dt. 10.1.2006   whereas the previous units shown as 47  and the amount is Rs.22,876/-  including  arrears. The contention of the respondent/opposite parties  that this first bill itself showing 2863  units is justified because the  line man visited the premises  on 10.7.2004  and found S.C.No.2103535 is being utilized for commercial purpose and that meter no.050 26073/5.29 Amps.   is missing.  It is pertinent  to note that no notice was issued to the complainant stating the afore mentioned  statements, except  for the internal  correspondence between the AAO(Additional Asst. Engineer) Operation  and ADE i.e. Addl. Divisional Engineer, Operation Champapet  prior to the billing of 2863 units to the complainant  on the new meter bearing no.6016 , respondent/opposite parties  have not issued any  notice to the complainant. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and his brother and the opposite party  who has issued an undertaking that he would take  sole responsibility  towards the cost and compensation with respect to the lost meter.   The contention  of the opposite party is that there was a meter  missing and the complainant was charged for the unbilled  units  is not substantiated  by any documentary evidence except their internal correspondence and to reiterate no  notice was issued  by the appellant/complainant,  either, prior to the issuance of the bill explaining  as to why  from first bill as opening reading  2863 units or even prior  to disconnection .  This act itself amounts to deficiency in service and we direct the opposite parties to revise and issue the correct bill for that period  i.e. July,2005   together with compensation of Rs.2000/-  and costs of Rs.1000/-.

        In the result this appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and directing the opposite parties to revise the said July,2005 bill and issue the correct bill and also pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of  Rs.1000/- .

                                                        PRESIDENT

                                                        MEMBER

                                                        MEMBER

                                                        Dt.24.6.2009