OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.2 OF 2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-I MACHILIPATNAM AT KRISHNA DIST.

Between

The Assistant Engineer
Sub Divisional Office
Southern Power Distribution Company
Kowthavaram, Krishna District

Appellant/opposite party

        A N D

Smt K.Lakshmi Tulasamma
W/o Hanumantha Rao
aged 39 y ears, Housewife
Gudlavalleru, Krishna Dist.

                                                                                        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellants            Sri O.Manohar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent          None

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

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                         MONDAY THE TWENTIETH  DAY OF DECEMBER                             

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

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

***

1.     The opposite party is the appellant.

2.     The factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal is that the complainant got electrical connection No.6122210000867 and SHE had been paying bills at an average of `250/- per month.  In the month of 8/07 the opposite party installed new meter in the place of old meter.  Since the installation of the new meter the complainant received bills for the month of August 2007 `1941/- and for the month of September 2007 `2323/-  The complainant reported the same to the opposite party and requested to enquire into the matter but the opposite party without enquiring into the matter disconnected the electricity connection sanctioned to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant filed compliant seeking direction to the opposite party to change the meter, to reduce the bills for the month of 8/07 and 9/07, to restore the electricity connection and pay Rs.5000/- towards costs.

3.     The opposite party resisted the case contending that the service was released under domestic category and the complainant let out the house to students.  The house of the complainant is having ground floor as well as upstair portion and the present electrical connection is released to a portion in the ground floor consisting of three rooms which are under the occupation of students but not by the complainant.  The consumption noted in the meter depends upon the utilization of the power by the inmates of the house.  The occupants of the house have to pay the consumption charges as specified in the bill and if the bills were not paid the service will be disconnected automatically.  On representation of the complainant’s husband, the opposite party directed him to deposit challenge fee of Rs.50/- for testing the meter.  The opposite party also tested the meter and found that the meter was working correctly.  The consumption recorded for the subsequent months i.e., for the months of 10/2007, 11/2007 is 583 and 533 units for the respective months and in the month of December 2007 also the consumption recorded was 274 units.  The consumer has to pay Rs.9,221.29 towards arrears of consumption charges from 8/2007 onwards.  The husband of the complainant gave a representation on 10.8.2007 and opposite party also recommended for issue of rejoinder hoping that the consumption is excess in the month of 8/2007 and a rejoinder bill was also served on the consumer withdrawing of Rs.828/- in the first instance but the subsequent consumption recorded in the meter show the same nature of consumption.  Therefore, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.     The complainant filed her affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A3.  Mr.Rajendra Prasad, Assistant Engineer (Operation) of the opposite party filed his affidavit and document Ex.B1. 

4.     The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to calculation consumption charges for the months August, 2007 and September 2007 at an average of `200/- per month thereafter to levy the minimum charges from October 2007 to February 2008 and adjust the amount of `2,000/- deposited by the opposite party towards future bills and also directed to pay `1,000/- towards compensation and costs of `1000/-. 

5.     Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party has filed the appeal contending that the consumption charges for the month of January, February and March 2008 would show that the meter was intact and that it could be inspected on payment of `50/- by the complainant which the complainant has not deposited so far as also that the energy supplied to the service connection of the complainant was discontinued for non-payment of the bills for the months of August 2007 etc.

6.     The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?

7.     The complainant was provided with electrical connection no.6122210000867 to his house.  It is not disputed that prior to August 2007 the electrical consumption was about `200/- per month.  It is the contention of the complainant that owing to change of meter with the new meter there was spurt in the consumption whereas it is the version of the opposite party that the new meter which replaced earlier meter was a high accuracy electronic meter.  It is the contention of the opposite party that if the complainant disputes the correctness of the reading shown by the meter he has to pay `50/-  for testing of the meter at the laboratory. 

8.     The contention of the opposite party that the complainant had obtained service connection under domestic category and he had let out his house to students is not denied by the complainant.  According to the opposite party the house of the complainant consists of two portions and the disputed meter was erected in the ground floor consisting of three rooms which under the occupation of tenants of the complainant. 

9.     The opposite party got tested the meter in the MRT laboratory and it was found that the meter was properly working  and it was recording the correct value of the energy consumed.  For the month of October, 2007, November 2007 the consumption recorded was 583 and 533 units respectively and for the month of December 2007 it was 274 units. Therefore, if the complainant alleges that the meter is not running properly it is for him to deposit `50/- and request the opposite party to get the meter tested at MRT laboratory Vijayawada.  The complainant has not chosen to request for testing of the meter by making deposit of Rs.50/- towards challenge fees.  The complainant  has let his house wherein the disputed meter is installed  to the students and the meter has consistently recorded 169 units for the month of May 2007, 94 units for the month of June 2007, 149 units for the month of July 2007, 463 units for the August 2007, 532 for the month of September 2007 etc.   In the circumstances the only option left to the complainant is to request for making inspection of the meter for which she has not taken steps by depositing the amount of `50/- towards challenge charges.  In the circumstances we do not find any deficiency in  service on the part of the opposite party in assessing the consumption charges on the basis of reading recorded by the meter.  The appeal as such deserves to be allowed.

10.    In the result the appeal is allowed order of the District Forum is set aside.  Consequently the complaint is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                PRESIDENT

                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                   MEMBER

                                                                             Dt.20.12.2010

KMK*