BEFORE THE VISAKHAPATNAM CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.1749/2007 against C.C.No.182/2005, District Forum-II,East Godavari at Rajahmundry.
Between:
1. Eastern Power Distribution Company of
Andhra Pradesh Limited, rep. by
The Superintending Engineer,
Rajahmundry.
2. The Assistant Engineer, Nagaram of
EPDC of A.P. Ltd.,
3. Assistant Accounts Officer,
Razole of EPDC of A.P.Ltd., .Appellants/ Opposite parties
And
Sri Bala Balaji Devasthanam,
Appanapalli
Rep. by its Assistant Commissioner
Cum Executive Officer. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.O.Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent.Mr.N.V.Ananth Krishna
QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER.
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST,
TWO THOUSAND NINE
ORAL ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Satyanand, Member .)
***
This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties before the District Forum assailing the order passed against them.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
The complainant is a Devasthanam represented by its Assistant Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer. The Devesthanam was having three service connections for supply of electricity by the opposite parties. One of the service bearing No.116/08060 became erratic as shown by the bills commencing from May, 2002 showing as if the complainant had consumed more than 1,000 units. As a matter of fact there was no such heavy consumption. So the complainant claimed to have found that there was some defect in the electrical meter and so gave a complaint to opposite party No.2 to change the electric meter but it did not evoke any response. Subsequently the complainant received a bill for Rs.22,676-10 ps. On 01-7-2003 for consumption of 5,600 units. Thereupon the complainant authorities addressed a letter dated 26-7-2003 (Ex.A2) to opposite party No.2 informing that there was defect in the meter and requested the opposite parties to look into the matter and instal a new meter. They also requested to review the bills and send modified bills for consumption charges taking into consideration the actual consumption. The opposite parties thereupon insisted that the complainant should first pay Rs.15,000/- and then only they would make an inspection and instal a new meter. Accordingly the complainant claimed to have paid Rs.15,000/- on 31-7-2003 under protest by way of D.D. along with a letter to the opposite parties and the opposite parties acknowledged the same. The complainant claimed to have incorporated in the said letter the full particulars about previous meter readings and consumption of units as also the load which they were using under the said meter, yet the meter was not changed. Therefore, the complainant got issued a registered notice and it was only after the notice that on 24-9-2003, the opposite parties changed the meter. However to the complainant’s dismay, opposite party No.3 sent a letter on 15-10-2003 to the complainant that it had to pay Rs.33,217/- on or before 28-10-2003 failing which the complainant’s service connection would be disconnected without any further intimation. Along with the said letter, opposite party No.3 sent units to be billed. It is submitted that when the opposite party officials were regularly coming to the complainant and recording the number of units consumed and gave bills, the question of billing units did not arise. When the complainant informed the opposite parties that the meter was defective, the opposite parties ought to have taken action immediately but they took two months time to change the meter. The opposite parties therefore resorted to sending huge bill in order to cover up their latches. The complainant emphatically submitted that there was absolutely no truth in the allegation of its consuming excessive units. The complainant alleged that though the complainant was a religious institution running on public money, opposite parties remained indifferent, as such the complainant filed the complaint for various reliefs as hereunder:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a) <!--[endif]-->direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.15,000/- paid by complainant under protest and out of threat the opposite parties
<!--[if !supportLists]-->b) <!--[endif]-->Direct the opposite parties to drop the illegal claim made by them i.e. Rs.33,217/-
<!--[if !supportLists]-->c) <!--[endif]-->To withdraw the excessive bill and raise for correct units consumed
<!--[if !supportLists]-->d) <!--[endif]-->Not to disconnect the service No.116
<!--[if !supportLists]-->e) <!--[endif]-->Award Rs.25,000/- towards damages for mental agony and suffering
<!--[if !supportLists]-->f) <!--[endif]-->Award Rs.2,000/- towards travelling expenses and notice charges
<!--[if !supportLists]-->g) <!--[endif]-->Award costs of the complaint
<!--[if !supportLists]-->h) <!--[endif]-->Award such further reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper.
Opposite party No.1 did not choose to contest the case, however opposite parties 2 and 3 filed a common counter. They denied all the allegations. It is maintained that the bill dated 1-7-2003 was issued by the opposite parties as per the meter reading provided by the concerned persons. The second respondent claimed to have inspected the premises on 30-9-2003 and pointed out that units to be billed were 24,967. It was also pointed out that 3000 units was excess billed and therefore an amount of Rs.12,180/- was reduced from out of Rs.45,397/- and it is how the demand for Rs.33,217/- was made for the complainant to pay the amount as representing dues. The Department claimed to have rectified and a fresh bill was issued along with the letter dated 15-10-2003 and it was received by the complainant Devasthanam on 22-10-2003. The complainant did not pay the said amount and on the other hand only paid Rs.15,000/- on 31-7-2003. They justified the demand and hence submitted that there was no deficiency and that the complaint was therefore liable to be dismissed.
In support of its case, the complainant Devasthanam relied upon documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A12 and the appellants also relied upon Exs.B1 to B5.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced on either side, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to rectify the bimonthly bills pertaining to May and June, 2003 on one hand and July and August 2003 on the other showing only an average consumption at 1314 units. The District Forum also directed them to adjust the amount already recovered towards the above said disputed months as against any other future bills. The complainant was also awarded costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred the present appeal on the grounds, interalia, that the order of the District Forum was contrary to the law and probabilities of the case. They found fault with the order of the District Forum for giving a finding that they were guilty of deficiency in service without any supportive material. The District Forum failed to see that the bills for the disputed months were issued as per the meter reading and the respondent herein was bound to pay the amount as per the bills raised for the consumption made by it. The District Forum ought to have held that the bills were properly raised as per the consumption.
Heard both sides.
The points that arise for consideration are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
2) Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
The opposite parties over looked two important statutory aspects in their performance. This was a case of July, 2003 and August, 2003. By that date some statutory provisions governing the standard of performance were put in place. More precisely, the said law was found in a statutory instrument what is called A.P.ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE REGULATION 2000. Clause 7 of the said regulations clearly mandates that the opposite parties were under an obligation to attend the complaints of meter within 7 days. It reads as follows:
‘7. Complaints on Meter: (1) The licensee shall inspect and check the
Correctness of the meter within 7 working days of receiving the complaint. If the meter is not working (struck up running slow, fast or creeping), the licensee shall replace the meter within 30 days of receiving the original complaint’.
Even if we ignore the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties did not heed their clamor against the defect in the meter since a long time as far back as from April, 2002, there is unimpeachable documentary evidence that the complainant had complained against the defective meter obviously through a letter dated 26-7-2003 to opposite party No.2 informing the said defect. The said letter came to be marked as Ex.A2. It is also an undisputed fact that the meter was changed on 24-9-2003. That means instead of attending to the meter complaint well in advance rather promptly as ordained by the regulation, the next bill in August was raised in dis- obedience to the mandate contained in the above said excerpted clause 7. They took two months time in contravention of the mandatory provisions and by a letter dated 30-9-2003 the opposite parties claimed to have made an inspection and discovered the wrong computation of 3000 units in excess. The said revelation has got nothing to do with the defect in the meter. They confined themselves to rectifying only the mistake in arithmetics of billing but there is absolutely no evidence to show that they addressed the main grievance of the consumer that the meter too was defective. However, their overt acts in changing the meter on 24-9-2004 is proof positive that the meter indeed was defective. This failure on the part of the opposite parties to adhere to the procedure or to obey the mandatory provisions contained in clause 7 in itself marks deficiency in service. Any act in derogation of that would at once partakes the nature of an arbitration action and when the enforcement authority is bound by the statutory rules any deviation by such authority can hardly be countenanced. A cursory look at the data inputs that went into the making of the impugned demand clearly reveals the element of arbitrariness as also a clear oversight of the applicable law. If at all there is any kind of vagueness in casting the relief apt to be endorsed presently by virtue of this appellate orders, the responsibility clearly lies on the shoulders of the opposite parties as it is the opposite parties who even while being in the know of technical things that deviated from the prescribed procedure from the very beginning itself. As a matter of fact even at this stage there is no proper assistance from the appellants to lay hands on the proper procedure that has to be followed in the matter of sorting out the dispute as regards attending to the complaint centering round the defective meter. As a matter of fact, the cause of action in this C.D. had arisen in the very same month in which the new Electricity Act of 2003 had come into operation and the old law was on the way out. Fortunately the A.P. Electricity Reforms Act 1998 had played the role of bridging this transition without the aid of General Clauses Act. In other words, the A.P.Electricity Reforms Act had already put in place not only Standards of Performance but also improvisional that has to be resorted to in the matter of attending to the complaint in regard to the defects in meters. That transitional law is discernable from the provisions of A.P. Law Reforms Act, 1998 ( which is subsequently saved by Indian Electricity Act, 2003). Under A.P.Law Reforms Act, (hereinafter called ‘Reforms Act’ for brevity) the Board’s undertaking vested or devolved upon the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 23(1) on the date of first transfer scheme. Simultaneously, the resultant Government undertaking vested in or devolved upon Licensees’ A.P.TRANSCO. and generating companies under first transfer scheme itself under Section 23(2) of Reforms Act. The next vestiture in line is Licensees’ undertaking of that part relating to distribution. It vested or devolved upon four distribution companies referred to as A.P.Dist. Co.-I, II, III and IV under Section 25(3) of the Reforms Act. The said A.P.Distribution Companies are renamed as A.P. Eastern, Southern, Central and Northern Power Distribution Companies by virtue of A.P.Electricity Reform (Transfer of Distribution undertakings from A.P.TRANSCO to Distribution companies) order 2000 which came into effect on 31-3-2000. That is how Ex.B1 to B4 wore the caption ‘Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred as A.P.Dist.Co.-III. It has therefore become clear that as on the date of the present cause of action the Act targeted for a change mainly the powers, rights and functions of State Electricity Board and the State Government under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 or rules made there under. Section 56 of the Reforms Act makes that theme all the more clear. Now the action impugned in this case is the one initiated and sought to be proceeded with and justified under the terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy by the A.P.Electricity Board notified by A.P.Electricity Board in exercise of its powers conferred on it by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. As could be seen from clause vi of Sub Section 3 of Section 56 of Reforms Act, in respect of matters provided under Section 49, among other sections with which we are less concerned here, of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, to the extent the Reforms Act has made specific provisions, the provisions of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 shall not apply in the State. It is therefore necessary in this connection to scan the whole of A.P.Reforms Act to see whether or not it has provided for those matters covered by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is evident that Section 49 is designed for the purpose of empowering the Board to sell electricity to persons other than Licensees’.
A close look at the provisions of A.P.Electricity Reforms Act clearly reveals that in lieu of the subject covered by Section 49 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, A.P.Electricity Reforms Act has not made any specific provisions though it otherwise worked upon Section 49 to mould the emanations there from to suit its needs as already shown by articulating on the impact successively upon A.P. Electricity Board, A.P.Transco, Distribution Companies renamed as Power Distribution Companies. This is how the operation of Section 49 and 79(j) of the Electricity (Supply) Act is kept unaffected. As a result, the Board and its regulations remained intact though morphed, by virtue of the impact of A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, especially Sections 23(1) (2) and (5) and other relevant provisions of A.P. Electricity Reforms Act and transfer schemes into the succeeding agencies like A.P.TRANSCO and later also as AP.DIST.CO. which of late assumed the name of four electrical power distribution companies named after the four regions. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that Section 70 of the Electricity (Supply) Act provides that in case of repugnancy between Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the rules there under the former prevails. This observation is necessitated as the remnants or vestiges of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 have come to be preserved variously by the A.P.Reforms Act and the subsequent law developed. As could be seen from Section 56 and 57 of A.P. Electricity Reforms Act, it is very clear that A.P.Electricity Reforms Act prevails to a large extent over other laws in that field and its primacy is strikingly conspicuous in restructuring the powers of the Board and appropriating the institution of the A.P.Electricity Board evenwhile giving it a different nomenclature.
It is in these circumstances that we have to revert to the provisions of revised terms and conditions of supply of electricity to see as to what was incumbent upon the opposite parties to do in a situation like this. Clause 22 deals with matters more particularly the accuracy, reading of meters, procedure for arriving at consumption when the meter is defective so on and so forth. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the opposite parties ever resorted to those provisions. When an authority is exercising its power it is incumbent upon such authority to preface the order with a citation of powers. Far from doing that, they simply scribbled something as found in Ex.B2. The Distribution company which has a kind of monopoly in the matter of supply of electricity is supposed to be more transparent and accountable in the matters of billing and levying a demand that is conspicuously absent in the present case and therefore we concur with the finding of the District Forum that there was deficiency in service. This naturally leads us to a situation where we can hardly interfere with the order of the District Forum as interference means and also entails some kind of adverse order against the appellants for which there is no material even at this stage. In this view of the matter, we do not see any grounds that would justify interfering with the order of the District Forum.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.3,000/-. Time for compliance six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
MEMBER.
MEMBER
Dated 25-8-2009
