This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 18-04-12 in the presence of Sri C. Venkata Ramaiah, advocate for complainant and of Sri B.M.N.Murthy, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to rectify the meter for SC.No.1413100001383 of Gurazala town, restraining the opposite parties from collecting the excess amount of Rs.31,621/- towards the alleged consumption charges till arriving of actual billing of probable consumption, to adjust the excess amount paid both towards future bills, Rs.50,000/- as damages besides costs.

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The complainants set up a hostel in the property purchased from one K. Krishna Mohan on 01-11-04 for which the opposite parties provided service connection bearing No.1413100001383.    The 1^st complainant is maintaining the hostel and is looking after the affairs of the hostel on behalf of the 2^nd complainant.   The complainants have been paying electricity consumption charges promptly till July, 2011.   In July, 2011 the complainants noticed that the meter is not functioning properly and had shown abnormal consumption from November, 2010 onwards.  About 60 students are staying in the hostel consisting of eight small rooms.   The said hostel is having nine ceiling fans, nine tube lights, a mixer and a wet grinder.   The classes and study hours are being conducted in the college premises only.   Taking into account the total consumption the monthly consumption bill cannot exceed Rs.2,000/- p.m.   In spite of complaints and notice the opposite parties did not chose to inspect the meter and answer the grievances of the complainants.   The complainants have been paying the bills regularly under threat of disconnection.   In October, 2011 the complainants received bill for Rs.31,621/- towards alleged consumption charges and ACD amount for the month of October, 2011.  Unless the meter is rectified or replaced the grievance of the complainants does not end and the complainants would suffer irreparably.   Unless the opposite parties rectify the defect in the existing meter or replace the same the opposite parties are not entitled to collect amount at their whims and fancies.   The complainants are not responsible for mal functioning of the meter.   Such acts of opposite parties in not taking proper steps to rectify or replace the defective meter amounted to deficiency of service.   The complainants are running the hostel exclusively for earning livelihood by means of self employment.   Any disconnection of supply will jeopardize the study of the students who are studying intermediate.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in brief is hereunder:

        The complainants did not pay the consumption charges for January, 2011, February, 2011, June, 2011 to September, 2011.  The complainant paid Rs.777/- in June, 2011 though the demand was for Rs.405/-.   The complainant paid Rs.20,000/- in September, 2011 against the demand of Rs.33,277.70 ps.  In a way the complainant is questing the demand in part and it is against law.   After issuance of legal notice the complainants approached the department and got explanation for about five hours and satisfied with the explanation to the effect that they became indebted to the opposite parties.   All the demand notices were issued in the name of K. Krishna Mohan, but not in the name of complainant.   Therefore the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not owners of the property.   Private accounting agents were deputed to note reading of customers allotted to them.   The complainants were benefited on account of failure of prompt recording of units.   The opposite parties of late came to know that private recorders did not record actual consumption from August, 2009 to August, 2011.   The complainants never raised their little finger against the opposite parties as they were benefited.   New wisdom prevailed on the complainants on account of inspection done by the Addl. Assistant Engineer (Operations), APSPDCL, Gurazala in February, 2011 and it made the complainants to address a letter on 11-02-11.  By February, 2011 the complainants have to pay Rs.26,581.70ps.   The complainants were made liable to pay Rs.9300/- only.  So the revised journal entry was accepted by the complainants.   The meter reading in February, 2011 was 21670.   The meter reading was not taken during March, 2011 to August, 2011.   In August, 2011 the opposite parties found that the meter reader had not taken readings and as such they raised the bill for Rs.21,922.70 ps.   For non payment of the said amount the officials were ready to disconnect the said service connection in September, 2011.   Hostel of the complainants contained eighteen rooms but not nine rooms.   Therefore the contention of the complainants that consumption charges cannot exceed Rs.2,000/- pm is a blatant lie.   The complainant has to pay Rs.12,722/-  as on October, 2011.  The statement filed by the complainants did not disclose actualities and the complainants cannot escape their liability.  The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-19 on behalf of complainants and Exs.B-1 to B-3 on behalf of opposite parties were marked.

5.   Now the points for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of meter?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for injunction as prayed?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for damages as claimed?
6. To what relief?

6.  POINT No.1:-    The electricity service connection bearing No.1413100001383 stood in the name of one K. Krishna Mohan of Gurazala village, as seen from Ex.A-2 to A-7 and A-10.    It is the contention of the complainants that they are in possession of the premises in which they are running hostel by virtue of Ex.A-1 possessory agreement.   The complainants are using the subject electricity service connection with the permission of the original consumer.   The complainants come under the category of consumer to the extent of using /utilizing the premises.

7.     The registry while numbering the complaint took objection among other objections and it reads as follows:

        “How the complainant is a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of                         Consumer Protection Act, 1986 when running the hostel.”

The complainants answered the above objection while resubmitting “the complainants are running the hostel exclusively for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self employment.   This case clearly falls under the explanation under section 2(1)(d) of the Act.   Hence the complaint is maintainable”.

8.     The affidavit was given by the 1^st complainant on his behalf as well as on behalf of 2^nd complainant.   In the affidavit filed along with the complaint on 02-12-11 the deponent mentioned that he is maintaining the hostel and looking after the affairs of the hostel on behalf of 2^nd complainant also.   In the description of the complainants occupation of the 1^st complainant was mentioned as Principal, JRR Navodaya Junior College, Gurazala.  Likewise in the affidavit filed along with the complaint on 02-12-11 and 14-02-12 also.   It can therefore be said that running a hostel by the 1^st complainant on his behalf and on behalf of 2^nd complainant is not for self employment.   It can therefore be safely concluded that the complainants are running the hostel in the property purchased under Ex.A-1 from K. Krishna Mohan for commercial purpose.  As the complainants hired the service of opposite parties for running commercial activity we are of the opinion that the complainant did not fall under the definition of consumer.  We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

9.     Under the above circumstances, the other documents filed by both the parties and the decisions relied on reported in 2010 (1) CPR 263, 2009 (1) CPR 67 (by the complainants), 2002 (1) APLJ 86 (by opposite parties) need not be gone into.

10.  POINTS 2 TO 5:-   In view of above findings, the complainants are not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for and we answer these points against the complainants.

11.  POINT No.6:-    In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.1,000/- payable by the complainants to opposite parties within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.   The order passed in                            IA 520 of 2011 on 02-03-12 is hereby merged with the order passed in this case.

        Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 2^nd day of May, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:

                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT