Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act questioning the legality of notice dated                   24-05-12 issued by the opposite party and an injunction restraining them from collecting Rs.1,47,812/- besides restoring supply of electricity to M/s Panchamukha Nagendra Swamy Brick Industry. 

2.   In brief averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant under self employment scheme established Sri Panchamukha Nagendra Swamy Brick Industry at Pedakurapadu village after obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned authorities.  The opposite party provided electricity service connection bearing No.1511451002700 under category LT-II (B) in 2008.  The complainant consumed 11,040 units during 3/08 - 02/10.  The complainant paid electricity consumption charges regularly.   In     March, 2010 fire broke out in the electricity meter due to short circuit.   The complainant brought the same to the notice of the opposite party.   The opposite party provided 5 KV load to the said industry.                           In October, 2011 the Assistant Divisional Engineer inspected the said industry and opined that 9 KV load was required for the said industry.  The complainant paid Rs.3,250/- by way of demand draft in favour of AAO/ERO/R/APSPDCL/Guntur and Rs.8,150/- by way of demand draft in favour of DEE/O/R/APSPDCL/Guntur on 21-10-11.   The Line Inspector of the opposite party used to take the meter reading every month and is issuing bills.    Number of consumption of units on average per month was below 500 units.  But in any case the maximum consumption recorded was 985 units in June, 2010.   The opposite party took away energy meter on 08-05-12 by obtaining the signatures of the complainant stating that it has to be tested.   The opposite party on 24-05-12 issued a notice to the complainant vide LR.No.ADE/OSD/R-1/F.No./D.No.974 and provisionally assessed electricity consumption charges at Rs.1,47,812/- from 08-05-10 to  08-05-12.  It is the duty of the opposite party to see whether the electricity meter provided to the complainant’s brick industry is functioning properly or not.   In the said letter it was mentioned that functioning of energy meter is OK with final reading 34097.   The opposite party in the said letter also mentioned that the meter installed is not functioning correctly.   It is therefore evident that the opposite party committed deficiency of service by providing a defective meter to the complainant’s brick industry.   Issuance of notice for short billing over a period of two years amounting to Rs.1,47,812/- is illegal.    Since the said demand is illegal and unjust the complainant did not chose to pay the said amount.  The opposite party disconnected the electricity service connection arbitrarily on 29-06-12 forcing the complainant to close his small scale industry.   By the said act of the opposite party the complainant was deprived of his livelihood.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is thus:

        The then Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Rural-1, APSPDCL, Guntur inspected the premises of the complainant where the service connection bearing No.1511451002700 which was released under Cat-LT-2(B) (Non domestic and commercial) on 08-05-12 and observed that “the meter records the BBA reading is not tallied with the check reading and the energy meter was tested at MRT Lab on 19-05-12 in the presence of consumer along with DPE, MRT and Operation Wings and found that the functioning of the meter found not OK with final reading as 34097 and further found that the observations clearly established the fact that the meter installed is not functioning correctly and that the MRT report clearly revealed that the meter was recording less energy consumption”.   Basing on the observations made by the inspecting authority the opposite party provisionally assessed the electricity charges due to the company in accordance with Cl7.5.1 of General Terms and conditions of supply at Rs.147,812/-.  It is wrongly mentioned in the observation that the functioning of the meter as OK instead of not OK.  The complainant cannot take this mistake as advantage.   The complainant cannot escape from the liability to pay the assessment since the other factors establish that the meter is not functioning properly.   Mere mentioning of OK instead of not OK by mistake does not come under deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party since the other factors supports the assessment of back billing.   The service connection was disconnected as the complainant failed to pay 50% of the assessment amount.  The opposite party neither acted negligently nor committed deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed with costs.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-16 and Ex.B-1 were marked on behalf of the complainant and opposite party respectively.

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

        1.   Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service                        by supplying defective meter?

        2.  Whether the opposite party is entitled to collect                                         Rs.1,47,812/- from the complainant towards alleged short                         recording and billing of units?

        3.  To what relief?

6.   POINTS 1&2:-   It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party is manufacturing electricity meters.   It is not the case of the opposite party that the complainant tampered the electrical meter and committed mischief.   It is the contention of the opposite party that it is not manufacturing electrical meters and supplied them to consumer including the complainant.   In Kailash Narain Khanna  and another vs. the U.P. State Electricity Board and others 1996 (3) CPR 47 it was held that it was the duty of the opposite parties to install the meter which was not defective.   Finding the meter installed to the complainant’s industry as defective in May, 2012 is proof positive to infer that the meter was not tested at the time of its installation or thereafter.  

7.   The opposite party taking away the electricity service meter provided to the complainant for testing is not in dispute.  It is the contention of the opposite party that the service meter provided to the complainant is not recording actual consumption due to defect in it.  Both parties relied on Ex.A-6 notice dated 24-05-12.  To prove its contention the opposite party relied on Ex.B-1 also. In order to arrive at a conclusion the sum and substance of Ex.A-6 has to be taken into consideration.  The relevant portion in Ex.A-6 is extracted below for better appreciation:

        “……2.  The following incriminating points are observed from the                        inspection report:

                On verifying the meter records the BBA reading is not tallied with the check reading.   The energy meter was tested at MRT Lab on 19-05-12 in presence of consumer DPE wing, MRT wing and Operation wing and found that the functioning of energy meter found OK with final reading is 34097.

                        Hence short billing case is booked.

1. Nature of defect reported:

The above observations clearly establish that the meter installed at your service connection is not functioning correctly.  The MRT report reveals that the meter was recording less energy consumption.   Hence short billing was done for your service owing to defective meter”.

8.     The contention of the complainant is that the meter found was OK as mentioned at point 2 of Ex.A-6 notice dated 24-05-12 and as such giving notice demanding Rs.1,47,812/- amounted to deficiency of service.    The opposite party contended that a typographical mistake took place in not mentioning the word ‘not’ at point 2 of Ex.A-6 notice dated 24-05-12.  Ex.B-1 is the detailed examination report of LTS θ 111 phase complaint meter.  Ex.B-1 revealed that the meter was removed on 11-05-12 and was tested on 19-05-12.  Test results and remarks were mentioned in columns No.14 and 15 of Ex.B-1.  In column No.14 of Ex.B-1 the following was mentioned: “Meter results are within the permissible limits”.   In column No.15 of Ex.B-1 (remarks) it was mentioned “So meter is normal”.   

9.     The contention of the complainant that the meter found was OK as mentioned in column No.2 of Ex.A-6 is having considerable force and the observations noted in column Nos.14 and 15 of Ex.B-1 falsified the contention of the opposite party’s contention that the meter was defective.  The opposite party coming to an opinion as meter defective inspite of observations in column Nos.14 and 15 of Ex.B-1 and issuing initial assessment order for Rs.1,47,812/- and thereby disconnecting power supply to the complainant in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency of service.   We therefore hold that the opposite party cannot demand the complainant to pay half of Rs.1,47,812/-.   We therefore answer these points in favour of the complainant.  

10.   The complainant in page 5 of his complaint mentioned that he was compelled to close his small scale industry due to illegal disconnection of electrical connection and thereby deprived of his livelihood.  But the complainant sought restoration of electricity to his small scale industry forthwith.   Both contentions are in just opposite to each other.   Under those circumstances, directing the opposite party to restore electricity on application by the complainant will meet ends of justice. 

11.  POINT No.3:-    In the result the complaint is allowed as indicated below:

1. The issuance of notice dated 24-05-12 by the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service.
2. The opposite party is not entitled to recover Rs.1,47,812/-.
3. The opposite party is directed to restore electricity connection to the complainant within a week from the date of receipt of the order on application by the complainant.    
4. The opposite party is directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.    

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 9^th of January, 2013.

          MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

For Opposite Party  :

                                                                                          PRESIDENT