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
Friday, the 29th day of April 2011
C.C. No. 48 of 2010
Between:
Ali Ahmed S/o Late Shaik Ahmed,
Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Near Post office, Narsapur,
Medak District. …..Complainant
And
1. Superintendent of Engineer,
A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Medak at Sangareddy.
2. Divisional Engineer, APCPDCL,
Medak Division at Medak.
3. Additional Divisional Engineer,
APCPDCL, Narsapur.
4. Asst. Engineer, APCPDCL,
Narsapur, Dist. Medak. ….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 08.04.2011 in the presence of Sri Ch. Nagender, Advocate for complainant and counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 Sri Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite parties, upon hearing 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 Se G.Sreenivas Rao, Member)
This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 23,589/- plus Rs. 940/-
along with 18% interest and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony etc., and Rs. 10,000/- towards the costs.
1. The case of the complainant is that he has electricity connection bearing S.C. No. 443. In the bill dated 07.06.2010, the complainant shocked to see an amount of Rs. 130/- and inaddition arrears of Rs. 23,590/-. He, then approached opposite party No. 1 where he was informed to pay the dues otherwise service will be disconnected. As such the complainant paid the aforementioned amounts on 23.06.2010 under protest. The billing clerk issued two receipts i.e, one receipt with No. 27075232595 was issued for Rs. 130/- belonging to S.C. No. 443 and another receipt with No. 1161260 was issued for Rs. 23,590/- belonging to S.C. No. 605, for clarification the complainant met opposite party No. 4 with the bill dated 07.06.2010, who did not say anything. In the next month also he received a electricity bill showing an amount of Rs. 82/- and showing arrears of Rs. 940/-. On payment of the bills, the complainant received a receipt No. 27075195570, dt. 19.07.2010 belonging to Rs. 82/- for the S.C. No. 443 and another receipt No. 118353, dt. 20.07.2010 for Rs. 940/- with regard to S.C.No. 605.
2. The complainant further submitted that previously he paid Rs. 176/-, Rs. 153/- and Rs. 130/- for the months of February 2010, March 2010 and April 2010 respectively for the service connection No. 443 only without including the S.C.No. 605. So the opposite parties must have wrongly collected the amounts of Rs. 23,598/- and Rs. 940/- showing it as agriculture which is highly objectionable and liable to be refunded for wrong billing.
3. The complainant finally submitted that he has established gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
4. The complainant finally pleads for refund of the amounts of Rs. 23,598/- and Rs. 940/- with 18% interest and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs.
5. a) The averments of the opposite party No. 4 (representing other opposite parties) strongly opposed the contention of the complainant in their counter. The opposite party submits that the complainant has two connections and the one bearing S.C.No. 443 is domestic service and that the another service No. 605/- is of agriculture service, which was released under category-V of subcategory 16 relating to horticulture and nursery. Moreover the complainant does not come under free category of agriculture because he is having horticulture and nursery in his land bearing S.C. No. 605 used for horticulture purpose, but he claimed as agriculturist. The opposite party also submitted the detailed statement of S.C.No. 605 showing dues from December 2006 till the date. However in between the complainant paid Rs. 3915/-,in the month of February 2008 for S.C. No. 605 and thereafter he has been regularly paying from July 2010 onwards.
b) The opposite party strongly contended that inspite of several reminders. The complainant evaded the payment since December 2006. In addition, the opposite party submits that the complainant was given ample opportunity and service inspite of nonpayment of energy charges. When the opposite party stood for disconnection, the complainant paid the arrears simply but it is not shocking to him. Therefore the present case is a fake case and there is no deficiency in service and the opposite party has not collected any excess amount from the complainant. Thus the opposite parties prayed the forum to dismiss the complaint with cost.
6. In support of the claims, the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 documents. Similarly the opposite party also submitted evidence affidavit and Ex. B1 to B4
were marked. The counsel for the complainant submitted written arguments inaddition oral arguments along with citation of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No. 7396/1996, dt. 01.10.2002 in support of his contention. Whereas the counsel of opposite party prayed to treat his counter as written arguments and gave his oral arguments too.
7. Upon perusal of the aforesaid submissions the points to be considered in the instance case is:
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, if so, what relief?
Point:
The complainant though he has two electricity connections like SC. No. 443 as domestic and S.C.No. 605 as agriculture service, suppressed the material facts before the forum despite the details in the combined electricity bill shown since 2008 year. The combined bill clearly shows the reading separately for domestic and agriculture and the complainant evaded payment for the agriculture service for the past 3 years. Moreover, the Exs. A2 to A12 shows separate amounts for both the above said categories, hence there is no surprise or shocking to note that only the bill dated 07.06.2010 of S.C. No. 443 for Rs. 130/- shown arrears of Rs. 23,590/- which was wrongly collected by the opposite party, cannot be a valid allegation by the complainant. Added to it the Ex.B2 shows that in the past the complainant paid Rs. 3915/- as arrears for the agriculture connection S.C.No. 605. So having known these facts the complainant expressed it as highly objectionable and not proper, leads to a conclusion that willfully the facts have been suppressed in this case.
Not only that when the opposite parties vehemently resisted the allegation, then the complainant twisted the matter during arguments that the calculations for the agriculture connection were
done as per different categories i.e., commercial. But on perusal of the exhibits of B1 and B2 the agriculture service No. 605 is under “LT category-V(A) Agricultural and LT V(A)(ii) Rural Horticulture Nurseries, charging @ Rs. 1/Unit. This tariff is as per the schedule given by Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited. So the contention that nursery plants do not come under commercial business and the same is held by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 7396/1996 is not at all disputed here, since the connection is already under agriculture category.
In the above context, the question of collecting wrong amounts and excess payments made to be refunded by the opposite parties does not arise. Hence the complainant do not deserve any merit or compensation.
In the result the complaint is dismissed, with no costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 29th day of April 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
-Nil- -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant: For Opposite parties:
Ex.A1/dt. 11.07.2007 - Electricity bill in Ex.B1/dt.(16 sheets)
S.C. No. 443 for CPDCL & AP Ltd -
Rs. 517/-. Schedule of Tariff
Rates.
Ex.A2/dt. 06.11.2008 - Electricity bill in Ex.B2/dt. (3 sheets)
S.C. No. 443 for CPDCL & AP Ltd &
Rs. 77/-.( with billing statement
AGL amount from March 2000 to
Rs. 8176/-). Dec 2010.
Ex.A3/dt. 06.10.2008 - Electricity bill in Ex.B3/dt. CPDCL &
S.C. No. 443 for AP Ltd - , Energy
Rs. 99/-.(with assessed for agri-
AGL amount culture service.
Rs. 7254/-).
Ex.A4/dt. 04.12.2008 - Electricity bill in Ex.B4/dt.CPDC of
S.C. No. 443 for AP Ltd – Issue of
Rs.99/-.(with combined bills
AGL amount to agriculture
Rs. 8755/-). Consumers.
Ex.A5/dt.07.08.2008 - Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs. 124/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs. 4315/-).
Ex.A6/dt. 07.09.2008 - Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs.240/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs.6240/-).
Ex.A7/dt.04.02.2010 - Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs. 153/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs.19,965/-).
Ex.A8/dt.04.03.2010 - Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs. 176/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs.20,865/.
Ex.A9/dt.-R.No. 1162090-Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs.113/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs.24,862/-).
Ex.A10/dt.- R.Dt.23.06.2010- Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs. 130/-.(with
AGL amount
Rs.23,590/-) for
SC No. 605.
Ex.A11/dt.R.Dt.19.07.2010- Electricity bill in
S.C. No. 443 for
Rs.82/-.
Ex.A12/dt.R.No. 1183533- Electricity bill in
S.C. No.605 for
Rs.940/-.
Sd/-
Member
Copy to: Copy delivered to the Complainant/
- The Complainant Opp.Parties On ___________
- The Opp.parties
- Spare copy Dis.No. /2011, dt.
