BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY PRESENT: Sri. P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A,B.L., President. Smt.U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member. Sri.Mekala. Narsimhareddy, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L Male Member. Tuesday, the 22nd day of April, 2008 C.C.No.99/2006 Between: T. Laxminarayana, S/o.Sangaiah, Age about:45 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o.H.No.3-9, Kalivemula Village,Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. … complainant… And 1. The A.A.E. (OP) Sangareddy Town and mandal, A.P. Central power, Distribution Co.Ltd.,(APCPDCL), Sangareddy, 2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P. Central power, Distribution Co.Ltd., Sangareddy, 3. The Superintending Engineer (APCPDCL), A.P. Central power, Distribution Co.Ltd,. At Sangareddy. … Opposite parties. This case has come up before us for final hearing on 15.04.2008 in the presence of Sri.T.Satyanarayana, advocate for complainant and Sri.BAS.Reddy, advocate for opposite partie No.s 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum passed the following O R D E R ( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President) This complaint is filed U/S 12of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments: 1) The complainant has service connection No.148 for his house, which was provided by APCPDCL. On 4.02.2005 complainant paid Rs.3000/- towards the amount due by him and Rs.50/- towards reconnection fee, total Rs.3050/-. There upon the opposite parties ordered for reconnection of the power supply to S.C.No.148 of the complainant’s house. In pursuance of it lineman has given reconnection within 3 days. From the date of reconnection the consumer has been utilising the power legally, as the said connection was provided by opposite parties. While so in the evening of 07.03.2005, i.e. 3 days after reconnection, the A.E.E. Swamy of Sangareddy town of the opposite parties, in collusion with the enemies and the persons ill disposed of against the complainant, raided the house of the complainant in his absence and registered a false case in crime No.2388/2005, Dt.07.03.2005 at 16.20 hours against him without proper checking and enquiry and without verifying records and obtained signature of his minor daughter T.Vijayalaxmi, under threat. The opposite party No.1 imposed compounding fee of Rs.500/- and assessment amount of Rs.1478/- and the same was recorded in the inspection report stating that the consumer committed theft of power from the department which is not correct. The complainant is elected ward member of Gram panchayath of Kalivemula village. He is law abiding citizen. He belongs to respectable family. He has been paying bills regularly. Being a responsible person he paid the imposed compounding fee and assessment charges of Rs.1289/- on 12.04.2005 vide receipt no.9014 dt.12.04.2005 under protest before sub inspector of police (vigilance), APTSPS, Medak at Sangareddy, even though the complainant has not committed theft of electricity. The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is using power unauthorizedly or through theft is not proper and correct because the departmental people themselves gave connection to the complainant’s house. The complainant never utilized power by illegal means. Therefore the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service, there by the complainant suffers defamation which is valued at Rs.80,000/-. He suffered mental agony also which is valued at Rs.10,000/-. Thus opposite parties No.1 to 3 are liable to pay Rs.90,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Hence the complaint. 2) The complaint is resisted by the opposite parties by filing a counter to the following effect: The complainant is a consumer of operation APCPDCL, Sangareddy of service connection No.148 to H.No.3-9, Kalivemula Village, Sangareddy mandal, Medak District. He is a chronic defaulter in payment of bills. It is false to allege that he has been paying bills regularly. As per records the complaint has not paid CC charges from 04/2000 to 03/2003 i.e. for 2 years 10 months. In the month of 03/2003 he paid Rs.2500/- out of Rs.8555/- the amount due as arrears, which was accepted as part payment. Later the complaint paid Rs.3000/- in the month of 02/2006 out of the accrued arrears of Rs.9864/- i.e. after 1 year 11 months of the payment made by him. The arrears of the CC charges as on 02/2005 was Rs.6864/-. 10 months there after in 12/2005 the complainant again paid Rs.2000/- out of the accrued arrears of Rs.8753/-, which was received as part payment. Thus Rs.6753/- remained unpaid after 12/2005. For unpaid amount of CC charges penalty will be imposed. In the month of 01/2006 the complainant paid Rs.2000/-. The balance of CC charges was Rs.4387/-. In the month of 03/2006 the department waived a sum of Rs.2711/-, after the complainant paid Rs.2716/- in the month of 03/2006. Only from the month of 05/2006 there were no arrears of CC charges. As the complainant has not paid the accrued arrears, as per his promise, by 01.03.2005, supply of power to his service was disconnected. The allegation that the opposite parties booked a case against the complainant after 3 days of reconnection is false. As the consumer found to have committed theft of energy, on complaint by opposite party No.1 to the APTS a case in crime No.2388/2005, dt.07.03.2005 was booked against him. The complainant / consumer compounded the offence with APTS police, Medak District, on 12.04.2005 and paid Rs.500/- towards compounding fee and half amount of assessment Rs.789/- totally Rs.1289/-. The allegation that the opposite parties colluded with enemies of the complainant and booked false case and obtained signature of minor daughter of complainant etc are all false. On 07.03.2005 the complainant was found to have been using electrical energy by hooking a PVC wire to near by over head line to his house without meter connection therefore case was booked against him. The claim for Rs.80,000/- + Rs.10,000/- total Rs.90,000/- is unreasonable and improper. Hence the complaint may be dismissed. 3) To substantiate the contentions, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and marked exhibits A-1 to A-4; the opposite parties 1 to 3 filed evidence affidavit of opposite party No.1 and marked exhibits B-1 and B-2 on their behalf. The advocate for complainant filed a memo to treat the contents of complaint as written arguments of complainant. The counsel for opposite parties filed a memo to treat the counter and evidence affidavit as written arguments on behalf of opposite parties. 4) Perused the record. 5) The point for consideration is whether the complainant has proved that the opposite parties booked a false case against him alleging theft of electric energy, if so whether he is entitled for the compensation claimed? Point:- 6) Case of the complainant is, he has electricity service connection.No.148 to his house at Kalivemula Village, and he has been regularly paying the consumption bills. On 04.02.2005 he paid Rs.3000/- towards the mount due by him together with Rs.50/- towards reconnection fee and in pursuance of the same reconnection was given to his house; but on 07.03.2005, without verifying records, in collusion with the enemies of the complainant, A.A.E. of the opposite parties by name Sri.Swamy raided the house of the complainant in his absence and registered a false case in crime No.2388/2005, and obtained signature of minor daughter of the complainant T.Vijayalaxmi, and assessed theft of energy at Rs.1478/- and imposed Rs.500/- as compounding fee. The complainant paid the amount on 12.04.2005 under protest. It is the further case of the complainant that even though he has been using the electricity energy legally with the connection provided by the lineman, a false case is registered against him and hence this complaint is filed for defamation and for mental agony. But according to the opposite parties the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of electricity bills and he was not regular. More over he was found utilizing electrical energy illegally by hooking to the over head line and therefore the energy utilized by him thereby, was assessed at Rs.1478/- and as he was prepared to compound the offence, a fee of Rs.500/- was collected from him; therefore he is not entitled to any relief in this forum. 7) On a perusal of Ex A-1, it is receipt dt.12.04.2005 for receipt of Rs.1289/- from the complainant towards assessment / compounding fee in Sc.No.148 in crime No.23882005 of vigilance of APTS PS Medak District at Sangareddy. No where in Ex.A-1 it is seen that the payment made there under was under protest. Ex.A-2 is intimation by the vigilance inspector of APTS to the complainant that he is entitled to compound the offence registered as crime No.2388/2005 Ex.A-3 is xerox copies of inspection notes and inspection report of A.A.E. Sri.M.Swamy. Ex.A-4 is xerox copy of receipt for payment of Rs.3050/- issued by the electricity department with respect to Sc.No.148. It is clearly seen in Ex.A-3 that the service connection No.148 of the complainant’s house was disconnected due to non payment of CC bills. The inspection notes and inspection report further show that the complainant was found taking supply directly without meter connection and using for domestic purpose and thus, he was found indulged in theft of energy. 8) Payment of arrears by the complainant on 04.02.2005 and reconnection given by the opposite parties is nothing to do with pilferage of electric energy. It is seen that the complainant has not denied consuming electric energy directly without meter by hooking from the over head line. On a reading of the complaint and evidence affidavit of the complainant it is understood that the complainant wants to impress upon this Forum that lineman him self gave connection to his house by hooking to the over head lines, which can not be believed. There is no acceptable evidence in support of such contention. This shows that the complainant is indirectly admitting using the electric energy by directly taking supply by hooking to the over head lines which goes to show that he is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and hence there is no consumer dispute. 9) In the case of A.P.S.E.B. & another Vs Udayakumar Jaiswal reported in 2000(1) CPR.524 it is held by the Hon’ble A.P. State Commission that pilferage of electric energy does not make the user a consumer and it could not be a consumer dispute. 10) As the case now in hand is also with similar set of circumstances it is held that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute between the parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this Forum. If he disputes the truth and / or genuineness of the inspection notes and inspection report under Ex.A-3, it is open to him to approach appropriate court / tribunal to agitate the grievance. This forum can not decide the said issue, because it is beyond the scope of the Act. The point is answered against the complainant. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 22nd day of April, 2008 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT WITNESS EXAMINED For the Complainant: For the Opposite Parties: -Nil- -Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED For the Complainant: For the Opposite parties: Ex-A1/dt.12.4.05- Receipt by A.P. Central Ex-B1/dt.2.7.06 Copy Power distribution Co.Ltd of Consumer Ledger of A.A.O ERO/APCPDCL, Sangaerddy. Ex-A2/dt.11.4.05 Assessment of pilferage of Ex-B2/dt.5.3.07 Letter from Electricity. A.A.O., ERO/Sangareddy to The A.A.E., Operation:town-1 Sangareddy. Ex-A3/dt.7.3.05 Xerox copy of Inspection notes And Inspection report From ElectricityDepartment. Ex.A4/dt.4.2.05 Xerox copy of receipt for Rs.3050/- issued by APCPDCL. Sd/- PRESIDENT Copy to 1) The Complainant 2) The Opp.Parties 3) Spare copy Copy delivered to the Complainant/ Opp.Parties on ________ Dis.No. /2008, dt. | 
