BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present : Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam,B.A.B.L., President
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)
Male Member
Monday, the 06th day of December, 2010
C.C. No. 26 of 2010
Between:
Sri. Shiva Goud,
S/o Sri Laxma Goud,
R/o 6-6-204, Ganji Maidan,
Sangareddy. ..Complainant
And
Superintendent Engineer,
Operation Circle Medak,
APCPDCL, HQ. Sangareddy. ….Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 22.11.2010 in the presence of complainant in person and in the absence of Sri B.A. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
(Per Sri. G. Sreenivas Rao, Male Member)
1. This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/- as punitive damages and write off Rs. 1407/- (Rs. 1337+70) excess claimed in the electricity bill and compensation for mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a senior citizen aged about 89 years, by profession an advocate and also a freedom fighter, who owns a residence bearing No. 6-6-204, Ganji Maidan at Sangareddy having first floor also. The ground floor was provided with service No. 2066 and the first floor with service No. 4414 (for the use of tenants of the building) by the APCPDCL Medak. He pays the bills regularly and very rarely goes to the first floor of his building to check the meter reading. In the month of October 2009, he shocked to see an excess electricity bill of Rs. 837/- issued by the APCPDCL department. However the said bill was adjusted in future bills i.e. till May 2010. Later on he accepted in his affidavit that the dispute in regard to SC.No.2066 has been mutually settled between him and the department.
b) With regard to the meter No. 4414 which is in the first floor for the use of the tenants is a disputed one. On 29.12.2009 at 10:00 a.m. the meter reader noticed that the meter burnt and he is advised to replace with a new meter from the APCPDCL department, Sangareddy on payment of Rs. 750/- through Demand Draft plus charges Rs. 25/-. On the same day, he visited the office of the electricity department to remit the amount, but he was told to deposit Rs. 1250/- for new meter, which he paid to the Assistant Engineer of APCPDCL.
On reminding the installation of the new meter, the Assistant Engineer sent his men on 05.01.2010 to fix a new meter at about 4:00 p.m. and obtained signature on a printed matter without showing the contents in it. Which is irregular added to it they have also not issued receipt for the deposit of Rs. 1250/- made by him.
c). On 07.01.2010, he filed a complaint to the department questioning lack of interest in his case. Again on 09.02.2010 he gave a complaint to Sri. Sunder Reddy, Superintendent Engineer, Operation circle Medak at Sangareddy reiterating the aforesaid facts. Further, he alleged that the APCPDCL issued electricity bills for the months October 2009 to December 2009, though the tenants have not occupied the premises. Not only this, they are not showing the units consumed during this period.
Further on 26.06.2010 the APCPDCL Department has disconnected the supply without show cause notice in respect of service No. 4414. The complainant filed I.A. No. 35/10 in the present case on 30.06.2010 with a prayer to restore service connection and supply. The connection was reinstated on 02.07.2010.
d) Finally, the complainant is put to harassment and mental agony, not mindful of his advanced old age. He, therefore, demands punitive damages, refund of excess paid in electricity bills and compensation for mental agony and costs for the complaint from the opposite party.
3) The contention of the opposite party in his counter is that, the dispute is settled with regard to the meter No. 2066, between the department and complainant.
b) The opposite party submitted that with regard to service No. 4414 on the first floor of the complainant’s house. The meter reader informed the complainant about the burning of the meter in October 2009 but the consumer has not responded. At the request of the complainant on 05.01.2010, a new meter was fixed even without demand draft for Rs. 1100/- as the complainant is an advocate and enlightened person in Sangareddy. The opposite party further shown the old and new readings on meter change slip and obtained the signature of the complainant after his satisfaction and gave the slip to complainant/ consumer.
c) Added to the above, the opposite party also submitted that according to the modified rates contained in the memo dated 06.11.2009 (circular), a new meter with a capacity of 5-30A with PP box was fixed as per the load condition of the premises of the complainant which costs Rs.1100/-.
d) As the meter No. 4414 burnt is October 2009, the electricity bills for the subsequent months were calculated based on the average consumption of energy which was calculated as 165 units per month. Hence the bills from October 09 to January 2010 the electricity bills were issued, whether the consumer uses the electricity or not.
e) The opposite party further alleged that as the complainant/consumer has not been paying the electricity bills regularly from October 2009 onwards, the arrears from October 2009 till July 2010 accrued to Rs. 2216/-. Considering the complainant’s old age a cash memo dated 14.10.2010 is issued for payment of reduced electricity bills amount upto end of September 2010 but he refused to receive the same.
f) The opposite party lastly said that there is no deficiency of service from the department side. The APCPDCL has also supplied power regularly though he has not been paying the monthly electricity bills since October 2009. The department is sympathetic to the complainant/consumer as he is an old aged advocate. The opposite party also submitted that the forum lacks jurisdiction as the dispute raised is with regard to the wrong billing of electricity bills and wrong demand of bills as per the electricity Act 2003 and the meter framed there under. Thus the opposite party demanded Rs. 1282/- from complainant, towards the consumption of energy with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4). In support of the claim, the complainant /party in person filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 documents. The opposite party also filed evidence affidavit and the documents were marked as Exs. B1to B5 documents.
5) Further, the complainant advanced oral arguments as he was unwilling to submit written arguments and the counsel for the opposite party has not submitted written arguments.
6). We have heard the arguments of the complainant/party- in-person and did not have the advantage of having the say of opposite party as none appeared for him at the time of hearing the case.
7). The points, therefore, that arise for consideration are:-
i). Whether the opposite party claimed any excess amount from the complainant?
ii). Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? To what relief?
Point (i):
It is observed that there is no dispute exists with the service No. 2066.
Secondly, with regard to burnt meter service No. 4414 and its replacement by the APCPDCL, Sangareddy. The complainant submitted that he paid Rs. 1,250/- to the Assistant Engineer (AE) of the APCPDCL for fixing of the new meter in place of burnt meter. The AE of the APCPDCL department replaced the burnt meter but did not issue the complainant either a receipt or Xerox copy of the demand draft for Rs. 1,250/- which is required for fixing of a new meter.
Whereas the opposite party submitted that on 05.01.2010, a new meter was fixed even without receiving the demand draft for Rs. 1,100/- as the complainant is an advocate and enlightened person in Sangareddy. Added to it, the opposite party has also not demanded this amount in his evidence affidavit.
But the complainant says that the AE fixed a new meter of worth Rs. 750/- only instead of Rs. 1,250/- so in this way the opposite party collected Rs. 500/- excess for fixing a new meter in place of burnt meter service No. 4414.
The AE in his version submitted that as per the load condition of the residence of the complainant a meter with a capacity of 5-30 A with PP box was fixed which is worth Rs. 1,100/- as per the revised rates contained in the memo/circular of the department dated 06.11.2009 which is marked as Ex. B3 for information.
Now the problem of excess billing in respect of service No. 4414, as the meter got burnt in October 2009, the electricity bills for the subsequent months were calculated based on the average consumption of energy which was calculated as 165 units per month. Hence for the period from October 2009 to January 2010, the electricity bills were issued accordingly whether the consumer uses the power or not.
The opposite party further alleged that as the complainant has not been paying the electricity bill regularly from October 2009 till July 2010 accrued to Rs. 2216/-, in support of this the opposite party referred his document marked as Ex.B2.
Adding to the above, the opposite party also submitted that considering the old age of the complainant, a cash memo dated 14.10.2010 was issued to complainant, reducing the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,216/- to Rs. 1280/- upto the end of September 2010, but the complainant refused to accept the same.
In view of the above submission and counters to it by either parties, the forum feels suspicion on the actual amount charged for the new meter fixed in place of burnt meter . And the APCPDCL under no circumstances, allows its staff to fix a new meter without charging the customer, the required fees. So, certainly there is something fishy and it may be inferred that the meter worth of Rs. 750/- only must have been fixed as the capacity of meter of 5-20 A with PP box is 750/- and that of meter of 5-30 A with PP box is 1100/- leading to inference of very little or negligible variation in the capacities of these meters. Hence the complainant undoubtedly deserves the refund of excess amount paid i.e., Rs. 500/- (the difference of amount paid and actual required) and also reduced bills to actual consumption of energy after thorough calculation by the APCPDCL.
Point(ii):
In the light of the allegations, the opposite party On one side submits that he is very humble to the complainant due to his old age and on the other side he made the complainant suffer on many accounts for instance, the opposite party has not given the copy of the demand draft/ receipt for the amount paid by the customer/complainant, secondly an insistance only, the new meter was fixed. Thirdly, the opposite party has not counselled the complainant with regard to calculation of bills and its adjustment in the future bills and soon. Fourthly, on 26.06.2010 the APCPDCL has disconnected the supply without showcause notice and the complainant made to plead in IA 35/2010 in the present case on 30.6.2010 with a prayer “to restore service connection and supply”, thus the connection reinstated on 02.07.2010, causing the complainant to suffer without power supply for 6 days. This proves that the opposite party was found to be least bothered about the old age of the complainant who happens to be a senior citizen and an old time advocate by profession. Even the complainant’s honesty is also appreciable as he is seeking redressal for what he is entitled and nothing else.
The complainant is therefore, deserves compensation for all the above.
8). In the result the complaint is allowed and the compensation is awarded as given below:-
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,000/- as punitive damages and compensation for the mental agony caused in addition to reduce billing to actual consumption of energy and to refund Rs. 500/- charged excess in fixing the new meter and
Rs. 1000/- towards costs.
The above has to be complied within 30 days from pronouncement of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled to get an interest at the rate of 12% on the above amounts.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 06th day of December, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady member Male Member
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite party
3) Spare copy
copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Party on ___________
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
