Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/42/2015

S.R. Thyagarajan, S/o. S.Ranganatha Mudaliar, aged 76 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., rep. by its Superintendent Engineer, Tirupati. - Opp.Party(s)

R.Nagireddy

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

First filing Date: 24.03.2008

Transfer to this Forum and Numbered: 09.10.2015

Order Date:09.03.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE NINETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.42/2015

(OLD C.C.No.30/2008)

 

Between

 

S.R.Thyagarajan,

S/o. S.Ranganatha Mudaliar,

Aged about 76 yeas, Hindu,

Advocate,

D.No.3-115, Pagadamanu Street,

Greamspet,

Chittoor.                                                                                            … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd.,

            Rep. by Superintendent Engineer,

            Tirupati.

 

 

2.         The Divisional Engineer (Operations),

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L,

            Chittoor.

 

 

3.         The Assistant Engineer (Operations),

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Chittoor.

 

 

4.         The Assistant Accounts Officer,

            Electricity Revenue Office,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Chittoor                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 02.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing, complainant called absent - no representation and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) directing the opposite parties not to collect amount based on the revised bills, which are illegal and amounts to deficiency in service, 2) to direct the opposite parties or such of them, who are liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards damages, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the litigation and 4) to pass such other or further reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.     

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- the service connection No.996 in Greamspet, Chittoor, stands in the name of late.S.Ranganatha Mudaliar, the father of the complainant herein. After the death of Ranganatha Mudaliar, complainant became the owner of the said house. The complainant paying the electricity charges, as per the bills supplied, to the opposite parties.

            3.  that on 19.03.2008, complainant received a letter dt:14.11.2007 stating that as per the check reading given by the Assistant Engineer, Greamspet, Chittoor, the C.C.bills are revised from the date of replacement of meter for the period from April, 2006 to November, 2007, for the said period, the complainant consumed 646 units per month an average and raising the demand from April, 2006 to November, 2007, to pay a sum of Rs.59,100/- from Rs.11,530/- and requested the complainant to pay remaining amount of Rs.47,570/- to avoid disconnection. That the meter was running properly and bills are paying regularly, as such there is no need to revise the bills for the period from April, 2006 to November, 2007. The revision of bills on average basis amounts to deficiency in service. A letter dt:14.11.2007, served on the complainant on 19.03.2008, which caused mental agony to the complainant and his family members. Therefore, the complainant claimed damages of Rs.50,000/- for causing such mental agony. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party No.4 filed written objections on 02.07.2008 and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1 to 3. The opposite party No.4 also filed additional written objections on 22.09.2008. In the written objection / written version, opposite parties contended that the service connection No.996, was in the name of Ranganatha Mudaliar. The letter dt:14.11.2007 was served on the complainant on 14.11.2007 itself. But the J.A.O., who handed-over the letter to the complainant, did not obtain the acknowledgement from the complainant. As per the said letter, the opposite parties demand was for payment of Rs.47,570/-. The reasons for arising the payment of electrical charges are that the opposite parties have entrusted the work of recording meter readings of all the meters, to a private party, who was issuing spot bills up to Rs.20,000/- only. If the amount exceeds Rs.20,000/-, spot billing machine will not record the reading. In such cases, the spot billing reader is expected to note the reading in a book and prepare the bill in E.R.O’s office in the computer system maintained by billing agency and such bill should be served on the consumer. Where the spot billing machine is not able to record the value of consumption on account of bill amount exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the billing machine in E.R.O. office will record as R.N.F.(Reading not furnished).

            5.  As seen from the readings furnished by the private billing agency, there was consumption of 125 to 150 units every month from April, 2006 to November, 2007. The opposite parties came to know that the private billing agency could not record the actual reading for the reasons best known to them. Later, in the month of August 2007, the new spot billing person recorded the meter reading and informed the A.E., that there was recording of high consumption in the service connection No.996. Therefore, opposite party No.3 inspected the service connection No.996 on 28.09.2007 and submitted report on 01.10.2007 to opposite party No.4, that the meter reading as on the date of inspection was 11452 units. As per previous meter reading, it is only 3125 units as on July 2007, difference is 11452 – 3125 = 8327 units, found for the first time on 28.09.2007. Opposite party No.4 submits that opposite party No.3 has also certified that the meter was running properly and per day consumption is            22 units, which comes to 660 units per month, and recommended for revising the bills. Therefore, this opposite party has issued revised bill dividing the excess units for the period from April, 2006 to November, 2007 instead of issuing bill for total units with a higher slab. As per the check reading report, reading was 11452 units as on 28.09.2007. The previous reading furnished by the private billing agency as on August, 2007 is only 3125 units. Therefore, the difference of units (8327) will be billed, which were not recorded by the spot billing agency, was taken and it comes to 646 units per month on average. Accordingly, the revised bill for Rs.47,570/- was issued to the complainant and he is liable to pay the said amount. When explained the above fact to the complainant, he agreed to pay the same on installments and prolonged the matter for four months, later he filed the complaint instead of making payment of bill amount. The opposite parties further contended that the dispute of revised bills cannot be called as deficiency in service; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  The complainant filed his affidavit as P.W.1 and opposite party filed evidence affidavit as R.W.1, and got marked Ex.A1 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B6 for the opposite parties.

7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            i).  Whether the revision of electrical bills amounts to deficiency in service?

            ii).  Whether the dispute relating to revision of electrical bills do not come

       under the purview of Consumer Forum?

iii)  To what relief?

8.  Points (i) & (ii):- While the matter was coming for filing written arguments of both parties, the complainant filed a transfer application before the Hon’ble State Commission, praying the Hon’ble State Commission to transfer his complaint from District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor, to any other Forum. As per the orders of the Hon’ble State Commission in the transfer application No.5/2009 filed by the complainant dt:23.09.2009, this Forum received this complaint on 09.10.2015. Thereafter, notices were issued to both the parties. The opposite parties made their appearance through the counsel, whereas the complainant did not appear before this Forum after receiving the complaint on transfer, though notices were served on the complainant on 12.11.2015. The complainant did not inclined either to appear before this Forum personally or to represent his case through his agent / advocate. Even right from the beginning no evidence affidavit was filed by the complainant except an affidavit filed along with the complaint on 24.03.2008. The complainant also neither advanced his oral arguments nor filed written arguments in support of his case. The main point for consideration is, whether the revision of electrical bills, according to complainant, amounts to deficiency in service. The word “deficiency” is defined under Section-2(1)(g) of the C.P.Act as follows:

“deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.

                        

            Thus, it can be said that if any fault or imperfection or short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance is found on the part of the opposite party in providing service to the complainant, then it can be said ‘deficiency’. If the private spot billing agency records the meter reading indifferently i.e. against the actual reading for the reasons best known to them, such reading cannot be said as deficiency in service. But, later the actual meter reading was found higher and the concerned department issued revised bills for the balance of units recorded, which does not amounts to deficiency in service. If the department – opposite party, failed to provide any service such as supply of meter or recording the meter reading excessively or without providing any meter bills are issued, under such circumstances, it can be called as deficiency in service.

9.  That apart the learned counsel for the opposite parties represented that as per Sec.145 of Electricity Act 2003, Civil Court or other authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding regarding assessment of electricity tariff, if unauthorized use of electricity is found and he shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment, the electricity charges payable by such person or by any other person benefited by such use. Relied on a decision reported in 2008(4) CPR 190 SC – Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Anwar Ali – Appeal (Civil) 4734 of 2007 , in which their Lordships held that Sections-145 and 126 of Electricity Act 2003 – in matters of assessment of electricity bills, the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Act. The brief facts of the above decision are the appellants had questioned correctness of the findings recorded by the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi, before the National Commission. The basic grievances of the respondent were that the electricity supply was discontinued without notice. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded along with 12% interest per annum by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission. The National Commission took the view that since notice was given after disconnection, the action was clearly unsustainable. Their Lordships further held that in this case we are concerned with the scope and extent of the beneficial consumer jurisdiction, particularly with regard to technical subjects falling under provisions such as the Electricity Act, 2003. Under Section-2(c) of the Act “Complaint” is defined to mean allegation in writing made by a complainant that the service provider has charged for the services, a price in excess of the price fixed under the law for the time being in force. Under Section-2(d) “consumer” is defined to mean any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. Under Section-2(g) of the Act the word “deficiency” is defined to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The word “goods” is defined under Section-2(i) to mean goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. “Service” also defined under Section-2(o) of the Act to mean service of any description which is made available to users in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical energy, entertainment etc. Therefore, supply of electric energy by the Nigam falls under Section-2(o) of the Act. However, the question which arises for determination and which has not been decided is whether the beneficial consumer jurisdiction extends to determination of tortuous acts and liability arising there from by the Consumer Forum. In this connection, it is urged on behalf of the Nigam that assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. In this connection, it is urged that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. In this connection, reliance was placed on Section-145 of the said Act 2003, under which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits in respect of matters falling under Section-12G is expressly barred. These are matters of assessment. It is stated that the 2003 Act is a complete code by itself and therefore, in matters of assessment of electricity bills, the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder either expressly or by incorporation. In the case on hand also the matter is in respect of assessment of electricity bills. No disconnection was made in respect of service connection No.996 of the complainant.

10.  We also relied on the following decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No.1112/2014 in Walmik Vs.Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. by its Chief Engineer, order dt:13.01.2015, wherein their Lordships held that a complaint against the assessment made by Assessing Officer under Section.126 or against the offences under Sections.135 to 140 of the Electricity Act 2003, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

11.  The learned counsel for the opposite parties while advancing arguments stated that the complainant managed the private billing agency and got recorded the meter reading to minimum units, than recording the actual meter reading, for which the opposite parties have inspected and found that there is meter reading excessively. Therefore, a revised bill was issued for the balance of units consumed by the consumer / complainant. This is nothing but assessing the electricity bills for the actual consumption of electrical energy in units. Under those circumstances and in the absence of any arguments or evidence affidavit by the complainant, we are of the opinion that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.                   

            12.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion made supra, we are of the opinion that complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 9^th day of March, 2016.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                                        

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1: S.R. Thyagarajan (Affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

RW-1: P. Rama Suresh (Affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

EXHIBITS (EX.A)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Letter by the Assistant Account Officer, Electricity Revenue Office, Chittoor with 2 annexure (1) Electricity C.C. bills issued from 04/2006 to 11/2007 for S.C.No.996 of Greams Pet and (2) Revised C.C. bills issued from 04/2006 to 11/2007.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

EXHIBITS (EX.B)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
1.	Carbon copy of check reading report issued by the 3rd Opposite Party.
2.	Attested copy of meter reading book for the period from 4/2006 to 11/2007.
3.	Attested copy of consumer ledger extract.
4.	Attested copy of meter reading Register.
5.	Duplicate bills from January 2008 to November 2008.
6.	Account copy relating to the complainant’s service.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-      

                                                                                                               President

            // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.