F.A.No.130 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.11 OF 2007, DISTRICT FORUM, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Between:

1. The Addl. Asst.Engineer, Operation,

    APCPDCL., Sangareddy, Medak District.

2. The Divisional Engineer, Electricity/O/APCPDCL

    Sangareddy, Medak District.

3. The Superintending Engineer

    APCPDCL., Sangareddy, Medak District.                              Appellants/Opp.parties

        And

Mayuri Restaurant and Bar,

Rep. by K.Mahesh S/o.K.Yadagiri

Aged about 28 years, Occ:Business,

R/o.Opp. New Bus Stand,

Sangareddy-502 001, Medak District.                              Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:          Sri O.Manohar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent:         Respondent served

QUORUM:           SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.

                                                AND

               SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

.

THURSDAY THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                             ***

1.     The Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are the appellants. The appeal is filed challenging the order of the District Forum whereby the opposite parties have been directed not to insist on payment of Electricity charges of `32,290/- from the complainant. The appellants challenge the impugned order on the strength of clause No 7.5 of the general terms and conditions of the supply which provide for detailed mechanism and procedure in case of a defective meter and basing on the fact that the respondent is liable to pay the charges for the quantam of energy consumed, Rs.32,290/- which could not be demanded earlier due to defect in ‘B’ phase of the meter.

2.     The Respondent is a firm running business of Restaurant and bar under the name and style of “Mayuri Restaurant and Bar”. On request of the Respondents, the appellants changed the meter with a new meter. The appellants issued bill dated 05/02/2007 for Rs.71,264/- and on application filed by the Respondent, issued a revised bill for arrears of Rs.32,290/-.The Respondent contended that the earlier meter had shown excess consumption and as such average consumption should be the basis for calculation of the consumption charges whereas the appellants contended that basing on the report of M.R.T. Laboratory, assessment notice for short billing was sent to the Respondent.

3.     The Respondent has filed his affidavit and got marked ExA1 to A36. The appellant no 1 filed his affidavit and got marked the documents Ex B1 to B4.

4 .    The point for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled for waiver of consumption charges.

5.     The meter pertaining to the service connection bearing No.17637 of the Respondent was sent on 13/04/2006 to the M.R.T Laboratory where it was tested in presence of the Respondent and the Report was issued indicating the defect only in ‘B’ phase. The Report reads as under.

6.     “The electronic meter is received in LT Lab openly. The meter was tested in presence of consumer representative, the meter MRT cover seals are observed intact and good. The meter is tested with 2.0 KW heater and it is found that the “B” Phase is not working and “R” & “Y” Phases are working and found OK. and observed the following.

“R” Phase           -       6.6 Amps           219.4 Volts

“Y” Phase           -       6.6 Amps           200   Volts

“B” Phase           -       0    Amps                0   Volts

7.     The Report had shown that one phase, ’B’ phase in the meter was not working but not all the phases. The theory of average consumption can be applied only in the circumstance where all the phases of the meter became deficient and termed as defective. The short billing notice was issued on the strength of technical reports of the M.R.T laboratory. The meter was tested in the presence of the Respondent. The Respondent had not raised any objection as to the mode of testing the meter. M.R.T Laboratory is a statutory body and it had tested the meter in accordance with the prescribed procedure. As such, it cannot be said that the Respondent consumed less energy and entitled for assessment of the consumption charges on the basis of “average consumption charges”. The Respondent has to pay the consumption charges to the appellants  in proportion to the utilization of the supply of the power. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8.     In the  result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 16-10-2007  of the District Forum is set aside. The costs of the proceedings are quantized at `2000/-. 

                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                        MEMBER.

                                                                  Dated 16.12.2010

JM/KMK*