Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 24th day of November, 2004
C.D.No.35/2004
Gattu Phani Rao,
S/o Gattu Nagabhushana Rao,
Cotton Ginning Factory,
H.No.16/68-B
Basapuram Road,
Adoni. . . . Complainants represented by their counsel
Sri.Gujarati Naga Raju and Sri.J.P.Basava Raju.
-Vs-
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,
Alur Road, Adoni.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,
Bellary Road, A.P.S.A.P. Camp,
Opp.APSRTC Bus Stand, Kurnool.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited,
Alur Road, Adoni. . . . Opposite parties 1 to3 represented by their counsel
Sri.D.Srinivasulu.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under sections 10 and 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a directions on the opposite party to lend proper service to the complainant’s unit with S.C.No.23090 connecting its 44 H.P. Units to L.T. Category, to declare the consumption bills issued during the disconnection period as null and void and to restore the electricity connection and to grant Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs along with other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant has obtained 44 H.P. electricity connection to this Industrial Service connection in September, 1995 to his small scale industry unit namely Gattu Paniraj Ginning factory and on approach of one oil mill owner namely G.Nagabhushan Rao for his 73 H.P. connection, at the instance of the opposite party the complainant was made to include to the said additional load to his existing load on receipt of Rs.1,09,500/- as developmental charges upgrading to hit category B-3 since April, 2002 and to a unit rate of Rs.7/- from Rs.4/-. As there was bulk increase of consumption the opposite parties were requested on 24-02-2003 by the complainant for bifurcation of his service connection from that of the oil mill. But the opposite parties neither responded to it nor to the reminder requisitions made to that effect on 24-05-2003, 13-08-2003, 09-12-2003 and 13-01-2004 and to the legal notice dated 09-02-2004. Even though the complainant has no concerned with the oil mill of G.Naghabhushan Rao as his unit and the letters unit were in different campus under the deficient managements. The opposite paresis ultimately without notice of disconnection of the supply of the electrical energy to the complainant’s unit, but not clearance of the consumption bill of 4/2003 and 5/2003. The opposite parties paid deaf ear to the directions of the Director dated 24-02-2003 and 20-10-2003 to bifurcate the service connection and the said conduct of the opposite parties resulting the loss of heavy amounts and inconvenience to the complainant besides to the mental agony and suffering as is amounting to deficiency of service constrained the complainant for seeking the remedy under the C.P. Act.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and while the opposite party No.2 filed his denial written version the other opposite parties filed memo adopting the written version of the opposite party No.2.
4. The written version of the opposite party No.2 besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant’s case requires the strict proof of the complaint averments by the complainant. Even though it admits the complainant has a small scale unit and the regular payment of the consumption bills till March and April, 2003, but deny any self employment to the complainant alleging g the complainant and his father as business family having several factories with numbers of workers doing business in oil, ginning and the availability of the additional load as per the existing rules of small scale industries and the complainant seeking for bifurcation subsequent to 01-04-2003 consequent to the change of rules and the collection of development charges and revised unit rate as per rules, terms and conditions applicable to the said 3-D category and not under any force. Nor the payment of consumption charges under any protest. As the service of G.Nagabhushan Rao was removed long back the request of the complainant for said bifurcation is without any justifiable cause of action. As the additional supply of electric energy was at the instance of the complainant and the disconnection of electric supply to the complainant unit was for the non-payment of consumption charges demanded for 4/2003 and 5/2003 and the bills and charges being levied as per the rules , denies of any deficiency of service on its part to the complainant and thereby seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. In substantiation of the complaint averments the complainant made reliance on documentary record Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 and on his self sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments, the opposite parties side has made reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.2 in reiteration of its defence.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties towards him and thereby his entitleness to the reliefs sought.
7.The Ex.A1is the un-attested Xerox copy. It envisages the provision registration by the Government of A.P. Department of Industries of the complainant’s ginning factory at Door No.16/68-B, Basapuram Road, Adoni. As the opposite parties are not denying the said registered unit of the complainant it is not requiring any more appreciation than it envisages.
8. The Ex.A2 an un-attested Xerox copy of the letter dated 24-02-2003 said to have been addressed by the complainant to the Assistant Engineer, A.P. Central Division Company, Adoni. In the said letter the copy of which was said to have been marked to D.E. Administration and Assistant D.E. Administrator. It was said that the ginning factory of the complainant and the oil mill of G.Naghabhushan Rao is being of different owners with separate identity, and on account of the clubbing of the board units the bills of the consumption were being hike and in the meeting dated 25-11-2002 held with the Managing Director, C.P.D.C.A.P. it was made understood not to club any two or more services with category 3-D even if they are in same compound if the owners are different, and so requesting for separation of those two connections and issual of separate bills. The Ex.A3 is an unattested Xerox copy of letter date d 24-05-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Managing Director, central Power Division Company A.P. Limited, Singarani Bhavan, Hyderabad reiterating the same mentioned in Ex.A2 and requesting for the same. The Ex.a4 is an unattested Xerox copy of the letter dated 13-08-2003 the copies of which were said to have been marked to the Superintendent Engineer, C.P.D.C.A.P. Limited, Kurnool and D.E. of A.P. Limited, Adoni in reiteration of above references requesting for bifurcation of the service connection. The Ex.A5 is an unattested Xerox copy of letter dated 09-12-2003, the copy of which was said to have been marked to the Commercial Director, Hyderabad, S.E., Kurnool, Assistant Divisional Engineer, Adoni, Assistant Engineer, Adoni taking reference to the earlier correspondence and reiterating the request for the bifurcation of the service connection expressing its in ability to pay the escalated consumption charges occasioning on account of the said clubbing of the service of the different service connections. The Ex.A6 is said to be the office copy of the letter dated 13-01-2004 addressed by the complainant to the D.E., A.P.C.P.D. Company, Adoni marking its copy to the Commercial Director, Hyderabad, S.E. Kurnool, Assistant D.E., Adoni, and Assistant Engineer, Adoni as a reminder for the earlier references seeking early action. While the complainant’s allege the receipt of the above referred letters by the concerned addresses and the non-response to them, the opposite parties side deny any receipt of the said letters by it and thereby says of any of its liability for responding to them. A bunch of courier receipts nine in numbers in Ex.A7 were filed to say the receipt by the opposite parties of the letters sent on 13-01-2004, 09-12-2003. The material in said Exhibit as to the receipt of the letters concerned therein by the opposite parties was not rebutted by the opposite party and hence the plea of non-response for want of their receipt by it bears any gain of truth.
9. The bunch of 6 monthly electricity consumption and other charge demand bills for the period of July, 2003 to December, 2003 pertains to S.C.No.23090 of the complainant as they are mere demands for the consumed electric energy they themselves do not serve any purpose unit their corresponding receipts follows them.
10. The Ex.A10 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 09-02-2004 said to have been issued on the instructions of the complainant to the opposite parties requests for the bifurcation of the service connection of 23090 on which oil and ginning factories are being commissioned and the conversion from 3-D category.
11. The Ex.A11 is a courier receipt dated 12-02-2004 under which the complainant alleges the sending of the notice in Ex.A9. While the Ex.A9 was addressed to the opposite parties 1 to 3. The Ex.A10 indicates sending of the material there under to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Central Power Distribution, Adoni and the said addresses mentioned in Ex.A10 being tallying to any of the opposite parties 1 to 3 it remains with any relevancy for appreciation.
12. Even though the complainant allege in Ex.A10 that he opposite parties converted his service connection from 44 H.P. to category 3-B including G.Naghabhushan Rao oil mils on the approach of the letter to the opposite party and on account of their separate existence and non of the units are connecting to each other having any concerned to each other and the payment of the bills of the consumption were made under protest, but the said pleas appears to be highly doubtful from the perusal of Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. From the perusal of Ex.B3 a power of attorney executed by the complainant and G.Naghabhusan Rao (father of the complainant) what appears is that both of them undertook to club other 73 H.P. Service of G.Naghabhusan Rao factory into a single service under category 3-B in the name of the complainant and also authorizing the complainant therein to look after the corresponding affairs and also an undertaking b the complainant herein to deposit amounts towards the developmental charges and the security deposits. The Ex.B2 letter dated 21-02-2002 addressed by the complainant to the Divisional engineer also reiterates of the said understanding. From the above what appears is that the clubbing of supply of electric energy of Sri.G.Naghabhusan Rao factory to the complainant’s service connection was done at the willingness and at the instance of the complainant himself. Hence the said clubbing is not being any arbitrary act of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot allege any deficiency of service of the opposite parties in continuing the service and charging the consumed energies and in disconnecting the supply on default of the payment of the consumption bills. Therefore any amount of correspondence were separating their connections and non-compliance of the said request by the opposite parties remains of any avail to the cause of the complainant in holding any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. Therefore there being no proper cause of action envisaging any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties the case of the complainant’s fails and consequently the complainant being not entitled to the reliefs sought the complainant’s case is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case each party to the proceeding bear their costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 24th day of November, 2004.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Office copy of Reng. Certificate from Industries Department as SSI.
Ex.A2 Office copy of requisition letter dated 24-02-2003 by complainant to opposite parties for bifurcation.
Ex.A3 Office copy of requisition letter dated 24-05-2003 by complainant to opposite parties for bifurcation.
Ex.A4 Office copy of requisition letter dated 13-08-2003 by complainant to opposite parties for bifurcation.
Ex.A5 Office copy of requisition letter dated 19-02-2003 of complainant to opposite parties for bifurcation.
Ex.A6 Office copy of requisition letter dated 13-01-2004 of complainant to opposite parties for
bifurcation.
Ex.A7 Courier service receipt (nine receipts).
Ex.A8 Electricity bills from 8/2003 to 01/2004 (bunch of Six Bills).
Ex.A9 Office copy of letter dated 03-02-2004 by SE to CGM, Hyderabad.
Ex.A10 Legal Notice dated 09-02-2004 issued by complainant counsel.
Ex.A11 Courier receipt.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Letter dated 21-02-2002 by complainant to Superintendent of Engineer A.P. Transco,
Kurnool.
Ex.B2 Letter dated 21-02-2002 by complainant to the Divisional Engineer, operation Divisional A.P.S. Electricity Board, Adoni.
Ex.B3 Power of Attorney to G.Phaniraj
PRESIDENT MEMBER
