This case coming on 08.12.2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Batchu Rajesh, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M.V.J.Ramgopal, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1 The complainant seeks replacement of the defective meter bearing No. 001211 or set right defective functioning of the said meter and to take proper action against the concerned lineman for not rendering service to the complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for physical and mental agony and the costs of the complaint.
2 According to the complainant he constructed two houses and got electricity connections and meter numbers are 001211 and 001153 and they are unoccupied. The watchman is residing a thatched hut near the two houses and using one bulb drawing power connection from the meter bearing No. 001211. The monthly meter reading was shown more than the minimum power charges. Even then also he paid bills regularly and the excess meter reading was also brought notice to the lineman but did not take any action. He received power supply bills for the meter bearing No. 001211 for the months of November and December,2010 for Rs. 5126/-. On 25.01.2011 he sent a representation to the opposite parties with regard to the excess bill. As there was no reply, again he sent another representation on 18.02.2011. Subsequently opposite party No.1 inspected the premises and conducted test and found the meter was proper and reading tally at the time of inspection. On 22.02.2011 the opposite party No.1 also sent a reply that check reading dated 21.01.2011 was found correct. Subsequently on 05.03.2011 he sent letters to the opposite parties reiterating his grievances. According to him as a matter of fact there was no power supply to the said meter for the last two to three months. He received a certificate by the 1st opposite party that everything is alright and directed him to pay Rs.50/- towards meter test charges and also to pay power bill. Thus according to complainant though the meter was not functioning properly and was receiving excess bill without considering the facts opposite party one found the meter was functioning properly. He has also grouse against lineman for not rendering services properly. Thus the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties caused heavy loss, mental agony and hence approached this Forum for Redressal of his grievance.
3 The 2nd opposite party filed its written version adopted by the opposite parties 1 and 3 denying the material allegations attributed against them and further according to them on 22.02.2011 they sent a letter to the complainant for representation made by him that the service was inspected on 06.02.2011 and found meter correctly regarding the consumption and there are no defects therein. In fact on 02.04.2011 the 2nd opposite party also addressed a letter to the complainant if he wants to test the meter he can sent to MRT lab, Kakinada. Inspite of the said letter the complainant did not come forward to get the meter tested in MRT Lab, Kakinada. Thus according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part.
4 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by him in the complaint?
3. To What relief?
5 To substantiate his contention the complainant filed his proof affidavit. The complainant exhibited 12 documents. Ex.A1 is representation dated 25.01.2011 given to the first opposite party, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are acknowledgments of opposite parties 1 and 2; Ex.A4 is another representation dated 18.02.2011 given to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant; Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are the acknowledgments of opposite parties 1 and 2; Ex.A7 is the reply given by the first opposite party to the complainant; Ex.A8 is the acknowledgment of 2nd opposite party; Ex.A9 is the representation given by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2; Ex.A10 is the power supply bill for the months of November, December, 2010; Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 are the power receipts together with demand notices. The opposite parties did not produce any evidence.
6 Admittedly, the complainant constructed two houses and obtained two independent power connections bearing Numbers 001211 and 001153. There is no dispute regarding meter bearing No. 001153. The grievances of the complainant is pertaining to meter bearing No. 001211. According to him though the house was unoccupied and only one bulb is used by the watch man he was receiving excess bills for this meter and on repeated representations the first opposite party tested the meter and found there is no fault therein.
7 Here it may be pointed out though it is grievance of the complainant the said meter is defective one, inspite of the intimation by the first opposite party to him under Ex.A7 he didn’t get the defective meter tested in MRT lab, Kakinada. When the complainant is not satisfied with test conducted by 1st opposite party, he should have opted the course suggested by the 1st opposite party to get the meter tested in MRT lab, Kakinada. It is only during the pendency of these proceedings on 03.07.2012 he paid the required amount for conducting test for the defective meter at MRT Lab, Kakinada. The copy of the said letter addressed to opposite party one is available in the records. The learned counsel for complainant also filed a memo in this Forum informing the disputed meter was sent MRT Lab, Kakinada and the same was tested. However the report was not served him nor produce before this Court.
8 Thus what is manifest is it is only during the pendency of these proceedings the complainant got the defective meter tested in MRT Lab, Kakinada and not before filing the complaint before this Forum. Thus in these circumstances it is clear that without getting the meter tested before filing of this complaint he approached this Forum.
9 Thus in these circumstances the complainant is to be considered as premature and there is no cause of action for filing this complaint. Hence under these circumstances it is to be considered that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
10 Point No.2: In view of the finding rendered under point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any direction or amount sought by him .
11 In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 31st day of December, 2014
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 25.01.2011 Representation given to the first opposite party
Ex.A2 Acknowledgment of 1st opposite party
Ex.A3 Acknowledgments of 2nd opposite party
Ex.A4 18.02.2011 Representation given to the opposite parties 1 and 2 by the complainant
Ex.A5 Acknowledgment of 1st opposite party
Ex.A6 Acknowledgments of 2nd opposite party
Ex.A7 Reply given by the first opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A8 Acknowledgment of 2nd opposite party
Ex.A9 Representation given by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2
Ex.A10 Power supply bill for the months of November, December, 2010
Ex.A11 Power receipts together with demand notice
Ex.A12 Power receipts together with demand notice
For opposite parties: NIL
Sd/- xxxx Sd/- xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
