BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM: KURNOOL Present: Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member, PRESIDENT (FAC) And Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member Tuesday the 22nd day of January, 2013 C.C.No.47/2012 Between: Smt.T.Krishna Kumari,W/o T.Murali Prasad, H.No.11/91, Kotha Peta, Dhone – 516 001,Pro. M/s Sai Dinesh Kumar Modern Rice Mill, U.Kothapally, Dhone, Kurnool District. …Complainant -Vs- 1. The Assistant Engineer, A.P. Transco, H.No.8/118, Behind R.T.C. Bus Stand, Dhone – 516 001, Kurnool District. 2. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (Operations),A.P. Transco, H.No.8/118, Behind R.T.C. Bus Stand, Dhone – 516 001, Kurnool District. ...Opposite ParTies This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri K.Sreedhar, Advocate for complainant and Sri D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following. ORDER (As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member, President (FAC)) C.C. No.47/2012 1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:- (a) To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for collecting excess Electricity Bill; (b) To pay compensation towards mental agony suffered in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-; (c) To pay with costs of this complaint in a sum of Rs.5,000/-; (d) To pay with interest 24% A.M. from the date of claim petition; And (e) To pass such other relief as the Honourable Forum may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice. 2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant started a Rice Mill in name and style of M/s Sai Dinesh Kumar Modern Rice Mill in U-Kothapally, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District In 2011. She obtained Electricity Connection to her Rice Mill with service connection No.0143000653 and the contracted load was 74 HP. Some time the complainant used more than 74 HP. The opposite parties collected 300 for 1 KVA instead of Rs.150/- for extra consumption of power. The complainant paid Rs.92,000/- as deposit amount for increased contract load from 74 HP to 120 HP. But the opposite parties issued monthly bill for 74 HP only and for the use of extra power, the opposite parties collected double amount from her. As the monthly bills were changing from month to month without any usage of power. The complainant requested the opposite parties to check the meter and she paid the charging fee of Rs.500/-, but the opposite parties did not check the meter. The opposite parties demanded her to pay excess amount, otherwise it will be disconnected. The complainant paid the excess amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with fear that her business would be at loss if power supply was disconnected. The complainant took loan from various person and banks to establish the said Rice Mill. The complainant issued legal notice dated 26-03-2012 regarding the defective meter and there is deficiency of service. The opposite parties did not respond. The opposite parties have tortured her by fitting up a defective meter and charging heavy amount. Due to the negligence act of opposite parties and deficiency of service on their part, the complainant suffered mental agony. Hence the complaint. 3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant obtained Electricity Connection to her Rice Mill with service connection No.0143000653 and the contracted load was 74 HP under category III A. Subsequently on the inspection by the opposite parties department, it was found that the contract load was increased to 120 HP category III B from 74 HP under category III A. The complainant paid Rs.92,000/- for additional connected load charges. The complainant made a false representation that the said meter is defective and was not working properly. On 28-06-2011 her meter was inspected by qualified engineer ADE/MEP, Dhone in the presence of the complainant husband and also signed in the meter test notes. The said engineer gave report to the effect that her meter was working properly. The complainant instead of paying the bill she got issued legal notice with false allegation. The opposite parties collected the charges as per actual consumption by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 is filed. 5. Both sides filed written arguments. 6. Now the points that arise for consideration are: i. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? ii. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? iii. To what relief? 7. POINTS i to iii:- Admittedly the complainant obtained Electricity Connection to her Rice Mill namely M/S Sai Denesh Kumar Modern Rice Mill with service connection No.0143000653 and the contracted load was 74 HP. It is the case of the complainant since taking of the power connection by her the charges of monthly bill sent by opposite parties was changing from month to month without any usage of power. The meter showed more units usage than the actual consumption. The complainant paid Rs.92,000/- deposit amount for increased contracted load of 74 HP to 120 HP in the month of August, 2011 which is marked as Ex.A4. Ex.A2 is the copy of billing connection and arrears history. Ex.A1 is the current billing in the month of January and February, 2012. The complainant requested the opposite parties to check the meter and she paid Rs.500/- on 27-06-2011 it is marked as Ex.A3. The opposite parties did not check the defective meter they demanded to pay monthly bills otherwise the power will be disconnected. The complainant feared that her business would be at loss, so she paid the excess amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to opposite parties. The complainant issued legal notice dated 26-03-2012 Ex.A5. The opposite parties received the same under Ex.A6 but they did not respond. 8. It is the case of the opposite parties that the contract load was 74 HP only under category III A, but the complainant connected 46 HP extra load and it was increased to 120 HP category III B. The same came into light when opposite parties authorities inspected the complainants Rice Mill on 30-05-2011 and the opposite parties demanded to pay the revised charges under Ex.B1 dated 04-06-2011. Subsequently her meter was inspected by qualified engineer ADE/MEP Dhone in the presence of complainants husband on 28-06-2011 and found that the meter was working properly. The opposite parties did not collect any extra amount from the complainant than the power consumed by her. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties did not filed any report or affidavit of the engineer who had inspected the meter after paying charging fee by the complainant under Ex.A3dated 27-06-2011. Though there is a deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, the complainant admitted in her complaint and sworn affidavit stating that she fear that her business would be at loss, so she paid excess amount every month as demanded by the opposite parties. Under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act “Hires or avails any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or parts paid partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes the beneficiary of such service. When such service availed with the approval of first mentioned person [but does not include a persons who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]”. In the above case the complainant run the Rice Mill by employing so many persons for commercial purpose. Hence the complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant can approach the appropriate Forum to seek her redressal. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed by her. 9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with liberty to approach Civil Court or appropriate Forum for reliefs claimed. The complaint can take advantage of provisions of section 14of limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, while computing period of limitation prescribed for such a suit. Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of January, 2013. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses Examined For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill List of exhibits marked for the complainant:- Ex.A1 Current Bill in the Month of January and February, 2012. Ex.A2. Photo copy of Billing, Collection and arrears history. Ex.A3 Meter challenge fee Acknowledgement dated 27-06-2011. Ex.A4 Photo copy of D.D.No.937236 Rs.92,000/- dated 01-08-2011 along with payment Receipts (2). Ex.A5 Office copy of Legal Notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 26-03-2012. Ex.A6 Acknowledgement Cards (Two). List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Ex.B1 Notice for Development Charges Lr.No.ADE/OP/DNC/SBE/D.No.1141/11 dated 04-06-2011. Ex.B2 Assessment Calculation dated 30-05-2011. Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC) // 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 : | 
