Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/259/2018

Executive Engineer, (O& M), Chengalpatu Distribution System, Sriperumbudur 602 105 and 2 others - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. Ravik sankar - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R. Amernath Rao Khande

26 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.259 of 2018

 

(Against the Order, dated 26.10.2018, passed in CC No.15/17,

on the file of  the DCDRF, Thiruvallur)

                                                    

                              Orders pronounced on:      26.04.2022

 

1.Executive Engineer,

(O&M) Chengalpattu Distribution System,

Sriperumbudur 602 105.

 

2. Assistant Engineer (O&M),

Chengalpattu Distribution System,

Veppampattu, Thiruvallur District.

 

3. Omkumar, Assessor,

Veppampattu,

Thiruvallur Taluk.                                                                                                                        … Appellants / OPs

 

vs.

 

N.Ravisankar        ,

S/o.R.Nandagopal,

No.18/17, Salaiyar Street,

Mandaiveli,

Chennai 600 028.                                                                                                              … Respondent/ Complainant

 

             For Appellants                 : M/s.J.Hemalatha Gajapthy

             For Respondent               : M/s.T.Senthilkumar

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 18.03.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Commission passes the following:-              

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

               This First Appeal is filed against the impugned order, dated 26.10.2018, passed by the DCDRF, Thiruvallur, in C.C. No.15 of 2017, whereby, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein with costs of Rs.5,000/- and ordered cancellation of the demand made by the Opposite Parties/appellants herein, insisting upon the complainant to pay a sum of  Rs.14,967/- towards RC/BPSC charges.

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the course of this Order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as averred in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:

             The complainant is the owner of the terraced house bearing Plot No.22, Annai Velankanni Nagar, Veppampattu, Thiruvallur Taluk and two electric service connections in respect of the said plot under S.C. Nos.551-001-452 and 551-110-1347 were over-assessed for the month of May, 2015.   As per the OPs’ consumer card, 1120 units were consumed, for which, the complainant had paid Rs.5,562/-.  On a complaint made by him, a new Meter was installed and, on 25.07.2015, a sum of Rs.4,678/- was collected from the complainant.   Thereafter, in respect of S.C. No.551-001-452  (in short ‘452’), for the next bimonthly reading on 23.09.2015, a sum of Rs.30/- was charged for 10 Units and also, for the next reading on 23.11.2015,  similar sum of Rs.30/- was charged, which were remitted upto 23.01.2016.   While so, the OPs/TNEB demanded the complainant to pay Rs.14,967/- towards RC/BPSC Charges in respect of S.C. No.452.   Since the new Meter fixed by the OPs for S.C. No.452 is a faulty one that gave rise to the wrong demand of Rs.14,967/-, the complainant made representations to the EB, whereupon, an enquiry was conducted.  Although the 1^st OP came to the conclusion that there was a fault on the part of OP Nos.2 and 3, in the subsequent enquiry, he insisted upon the complainant to pay the charges as per the demand.  The act of the OPs in raising wrong demands based on the erroneous calculations/readings from the faulty meter amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, he sought the District Commission to cancel the said demand and to order compensation for Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and physical strain caused to him by the act of the OPs.

 

             3.  Per contra, in the written version of the 2^nd OP adopted by the other OPs, among other things, it is stated as follows:-

             It is true that both the said Service Connections stand in the name of the complainant, however, the claim of the complainant that there was an over-assessment during the month of May, 2015 is denied.   Regarding S.C. No.452, for 1120 Units consumed, the complainant wrongly mentioned the amount as Rs.5,562 instead of Rs.6,222.  The new meter was not a faulty one and it was changed only on 09.06.2015, but, it was wrongly stated in the complaint as if the new meter was installed on 25.07.2015.  As per the order issued by the TN Electricity Board, all the old meters in the State were changed with new static devices under M.D. Specifications. Regarding the other service connection No.1347, the complainant committed default in payment of consumption charges between 23.09.2015 and 17.03.2016, because of which, the connection was disconnected on 19.01.2016 and it was restored soon after payment of the amount on 23.01.2016.  The present demand of Rs.14,967/- for S.C. No.452 is regarding consumption of 2810 units during January-May, 2016; as such, there being no disparity or wrong demand as alleged, no deficiency in service is attracted and hence, the complaint may have to be dismissed.

 

             4.  To substantiate the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits.  While the complainant marked 8 documents as Exs.A1 to A8, no document was marked on the side of the OPs.  The District Forum, by pointing out from the enquiry report under Ex.A8 that, during the enquiry conducted by the 1^st OP, the Reading Inspector admitted that, due to rains, meter-based reading could not be done and hence, previous-month reading was adopted for billing the electricity charges, ultimately found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and consequently, cancelled the demand made by the OPs by allowing the complaint in part with costs of Rs.5,000/-, aggrieved by which, the OPs have come up with the present First Appeal.

 

             5. Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

 

             6. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant has not made out a clear case by cogently narrating the sequence of events in the complaint.  Except the vague attempt to project as if there was some fault on the part of the OPs in taking the readings, there is no proper explanation forthcoming in the complaint with convincing details that reflect any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  In such circumstances, when there is a dispute over the meter readings so also on the payments made, adjudication cannot be done on such disputed facts in these summary proceedings as the process requires examination of witnesses and recording of evidence.  Further, while it is the general practice of the TNEB during flood/rainy seasons to adopt the previous month reading,  the District Forum failed to note that, in the version, the OPs specifically stated that the complainant had consumed 2810 units during January-May, 2016,  for which, the amount payable is Rs.14,967/- and that the complainant failed to pay the said charges.  When the OPs are disputing the case of the complainant by giving certain figures, the District Forum ought to have relegated the matter to appropriate forum/civil court where the parties could have canvassed their claims in a broader manner by adducing elaborate oral and documentary evidence on various points including meter readings/genuineness of the device, payments made, service connection disconnected or not, etc.  Without doing so, the District Forum, by recording contrary findings at Para Nos.20 and 24 to the effect that the disconnection was not even pleaded/proved by the complainant and that the complainant was not affected by any disconnection, without any legal basis, proceeded to allow the complaint in part.  As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

 

                7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed, by setting aside the impugned order, dated 26.10.2018, passed by the DCDRF, Thiruvalllur, in C.C. No.15 of 2017.  No costs.  To decide the disputes in a comprehensive manner, since the parties may have to adduce elaborate oral and documentary evidence, they can approach the civil court concerned, if they are so advised.

 

R.VENKATESA PERUMAL                                                                                                                     R.SUBBIAH, J.

       (MEMBER)                                                                                                                                       (PRESIDENT)

 

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/APRIL/2022.