BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 21stday of October, 2008
C.C.No. 41/08
Between:
S.Md.Ghouse, S/o. S. Khaja Hussain,
Resident of H.No.1-32, Chagalamarri, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Assistant Divisional Manager (O), APCPDCL,
Allagadda, Kurnool District.
2. The Assistant Manager, APCPDCL,
Chagalamarri, Kurnool District.
3. The Superending Engineer,APCPDCL,
Near New Busstand, Kurnool.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. A. Chandra Mouleswara Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.41/08
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties to cancel the
bill for Rs. 20,044/- and to restore power supply , to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for loss , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony , cost of the complaint and any other relief or relief’s which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is running owner a Cool Drink Shop for earning his livelihood. On 10-3-2005 the opposite party No.2 inspected the complainants shop and booked a case for charge of pilferage and on 19-04-2006 issued a notice to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.38,961/- towards cost of pilferage. On appeal by the complainant the said amount was reduced to Rs.14,723/- and the complainant paid the said amount in three installments. Even after payment of the said amount the opposite party No.1 and 2 issued another bill for Rs.20,044/- and on approched the opposite parties 1 and 2 forced the complainant to pay the said bill amount even though no dues are there towards the complainants bill . But the complainant did not pay the said amount, on 23-11-07 the opposite parties disconnected the power supply to the complainants house and forced the complainant to pay the entire amount. Since 23-11-2007, there is no supply to the complainants shop which resulted in loss to the complainants business. The complainant got issued legal notice and there was no reply from opposite parties . Hence, the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of their case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of receipt dated 02-12-2005, 27-6-2006, and 06-4-2005 , (2) Xerox demand bill 10/7 to 11/7 , (3) office copy of legal notice dated 17-11-2007 , (4) final order dated 17-5-2006 and (5) revival assessment notice dated 19-4-2006 for Rs.38,961/- , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A5 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version by opposite party No.2 and adoption memo by opposite parties 1 and 3 .
5. The written version of opposite parties denies the compliant as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that when the complainant approached opposite parties 1 and 2 and on verifying the records it was informed to the complainant that by mistake bill for Rs.20,044/- was issued which actually belongs to HSC No.3243 and the complainant has to pay only the C.C. charges i.e., monthly electricity consumed charges of Rs.756/- only and explained clearly to the complainant the said mistake and to remove confusion after giving clear clarification the complainant was advised to pay Rs.756/- which is CC charges only and the remaining amount of Rs.19,288/- belongs to HSC 3243, but does not belongs to complainants HSC No.3242. On 23-11-2007 the opposite parties disconnected the power supply to complainant’s shop because of nor payment of monthly charges, even now the complainant is not paying regularly the monthly charges . Even now the opposite parties are ready to reconnected the power supply to complainant’s shop after receiving of monthly regular C.C. charges but not Rs.20,044/- and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint .
6. In support of their case the opposite parties did not file any documents but filed the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.2 in reiteration of their written version averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service.
8. It is the case of the complainant that he is running a cool drink shop and on 10-3-2005 the opposite parties inspected the complainants shop and booked a case and issued a notice dated 19-4-2006 vide Ex.A5 for Rs.38,961/- as pilferage amount and on appeal by complainant the said amount was reduced to Rs.14,723/- and the complainant paid the said amount vide Ex.A1. Thereafter, the opposite parties vide Ex.A2 issued a demand notice for Rs.2,044/- dated 4-11-2007 for the month 10/07 to 11/07 . The complainant approached opposite parties for clarification as he already paid the pilferage amount. The opposite parties stated that by mistake they have issued the demand notice vide Ex.A2 to
the complainant and it belong to complainants adjacent house HSC No. 3243 . But when the complainant was willing to pay consumed charges for that month the opposite parties forced the complainant to pay Rs.20,044/- and when the complainant did not pay the said amount the opposite parties disconnected the service connection of the complainant . The opposite parties on the other side in their written version averments submitted that the complainant has to pay only Rs.756/- mentioned in Ex.A2, which are the monthly electricity consumed charges and the remaining amount of Rs.19,288/- in Ex.A2 belongs to HSC 3243 and does not belongs to complainants HSC 3242. It further submitted that they are ready to reconnect the complainants service connection if the complainant pays the regular CC charges and they are not demanding for payment of Rs.20,044/-.
9. From the above it is clear that opposite parties are not demanding for payment of Rs.20,044/- and the opposite parties admits that the disconnection to complainants service connection is only due to non payment of monthly electricity charges and not the full demand amount in Ex.A2 and if the complainant pay the monthly charges of Rs.756/- the opposite parties are ready to reconnect power to the complainants service connection. From the above what appears is that the opposite parties have knowledge that the demand bill vide Ex.A2 was wrongly issued and the opposite parties can issue a revised bill to the complainant, hence it is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite parties is issuing wrong bill to the complainant.
10. To sum up, as the opposite parties are ready to reconnect the power supply to complainants service connection on payment of Rs.756/- the monthly consumption charges mentioned in Ex.A2 by the complainant and opposite parties arenot insist the complainant for payment of Rs.20,044/- . For the above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties in issuing wrong bill to the complainant, the complainant suffered mental agony for the said sufferance the opposite parties have to compensate by pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and as the opposite parties driven the complainant to the forum for reliefs , the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. As to payment of compensation for loss of lively hood, the complainant did not file any supporting material, hence the said claim is rejected.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to revise the bill in Ex.A2 to the amount of Rs.756/- immediately and on payment of said amount by the complainant restore the power supply to the complainants shop immediately and to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by us in he open bench on this the 21st day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of the receipt dated 02-12-2005, 27-06-2006 and 06-04-2005 and demand bill for the month of 6/06 to 7/06.
Ex.A2. Xerox demand bill 10/7 to 11/7.
Ex.A3. Office copy of legal notice dated 17-12-2007 along with postal receipts and acknowledgements.
Ex.A4. Final Order dated 17-05-2006.
Ex.A5. Provisional assessment notice dated 19-04-2006 for Rs.38,961/-.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
