Date of Filing : 29.09.2011
Date of Disposal : 26.06.2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri M.Sreelatha, B.A.,B.L., Lady Member
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Tuesday, the 26th day of June, 2012
C.C.No.144/2011
Between:
N.Dada Saleema,
W/o N.Dada Abdulla,
Proprietor,
Ghousulwara Auto Mobile Service Centre,
Near Ravi Pertol Pump,
N.H.7 Bypas Road,
Anantapur. … Complainant
Vs.
1. The Assistant Engineer,
Operations, Distribution No.5,
APCPDCL, Bellary Road,
Anantapur.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Operation, APCPDCL,
J.N.T.U. Road, S.E. Office Compound,
Anantapur.
3. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Operation, APCPDCL, Old Town,
Power Office Complex,
Anantapur. … Opposite Parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri P.Ibrahim and Sri S.Gopi Advocates for the complainant and Sri N.Ravikumar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Male Member: - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 to direct them not to collect the differential electricity charges charged by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for Rs.4,679/- and to restore their service to category III from category II which was changed without prior notice.
2. The brief facts of complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Anantapur and running Automobile Water Servicing Unit near bypass road Anantapur for eking out his livelihood since April 2005. At the time of starting the Automobile Water Servicing Unit, he applied for electricity service connection and the opposite parties released the power supply under category III with H.S.C.No.92775. Since then the complainant has been availing the power supply as issued under category III and paying the electricity charges as per the demand notices issued by the opposite parties regularly. While so the opposite parties all of a sudden arbitrarily changed the complainant’s service of supply category from III to II without any prior notice and sent a demand notice in Lr.AAO/ERO/T/ATP/JAOII/ATP D.No.668 dt.29.03.2010 stating that the complainant’s supply of service category has been changed from III to II with effect from September 2009 and hence the complainant is required to pay the difference of amount under category II from September 2009 to February 2010 which amount’s to Rs.4,679/-. The complainant aggrieved with the said notice, the complainant approached the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL. The grievances Forum ordered to withdraw the excess bill issued under category II along with surcharges if any but with regard to restoring the category of supply under category III the order was silent. Hence the complainant preferred a complaint before this Forum as he is a consumer and availing the services of the opposite parties and paying the charges for it. The complainant states that without giving prior notice to the complainant and without going into the facts the opposite parties changed the service connection of the complainant into category II from category III, this is nothing but deficiency of service and hence they are liable to compensate for the sufferings of the complainant.
3. The 1st opposite party filed counter stating that the allegation made in para 2 of the complaint are not known to this opposite party. Further this opposite party states that the service was originally released in category III only, but on verification with reference to the tariff order it was found that water service centers will not come under industrial activity and hence the category was changed from III to II. This opposite party further stated that the back billing was proposed for six months as per clause 3.4 of GTCS by issuing notice dt.29.03.2010. Further this opposite party stated that when a consumer has been classified under a particular category and billed accordingly and if it is subsequently found that the classification is not correct ( subject to the condition that the consumer does not alter the category/purpose of usage of the promised without prior intimation to the designated officer of the company), the consumer will be informed through a notice of the proposed reclassification duly giving him an opportunity to file any objection within a period of 15 days. The company after due consideration of the consumers reply if any, may alter the classification and suitably revised the bills if necessary even with retrospective effect of three months in the case of domestic and agricultural categories and six months in the case of other categories clause 3.4.1 of GTCS. This opposite party issued a demand notice according to the rules and regulations of this opposite party. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.
4. The opposite parties 2 & 3 filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following points that arise for consideration are:-
i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3?
ii) To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 & A2 documents. On behalf of the 1st opposite party, the 1st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit and no documents are marked on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
7. Heard both sides
8. POINT NO 1:- The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties arbitrarily changed the service of supply category from III to II without any prior notice and sent a demand notice in Lr.AAO/ERO/T/ATP/JAOII/ATP D.No.668 dt.29.03.2010, informing the complainant that the supply of service category has been changed from III to II with effect from September 2009 and the complainant has to pay the difference of amount under category II from September 2009 to February 2010 which amount’s to Rs.4,679/-.
9. Aggrieved with the said notice the complainant approached the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL and the said grievances Forum ordered to withdraw the excess bill issued under category II along with surcharges if any, but with regard to restoring the category of supply under category III the order was silent. The complainant filed the order copy of the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL, Hyderabad dt.14.10.2010 which is marked as Ex.A2. The Forum observed that the purpose of supply of the complainant’s service was water servicing of two and four wheelers. As per tariff order category II is applicable to commercial and non-domestic premises such as shops, business houses, offices, public building, hospitals, hostels, hotels, choultries, restaurants, clubs, threatres, cinema halls, railway stations, timber depots, photo studios and other similar premises. Category III industrial shall mean supply for purpose of manufacturing, processing and /or preserving of goods for sale. This tariff is also applicable to water works and sewerage pumping stations operated by Government Deportments, Co-operative societies and pumping of Railways, pumping of water by Industries as subsidiary function and sewerage pumping stations operated by local bodies. This tariff is also applicable to workshops.
10. It is of course, no doubt that there is no specific mention with regard to the automobile water servicing units/centres in the tariff and the category to which they belong. The list is not exhaustive. But a reading of the definition for category III clearly shows that there must be some manufacturing, processing or preservation of goods for sale. The water servicing stations are not covered by it. There is no manufacturing, processing or goods stored for sale. Originally the opposite parties have released the complainant’s services under category III only. But on later date the complainant’s services was changed from category III to II. And there was no changes in the tariff order condition.
11. The opposite parties could not produce sufficient reasons/documents before the Forum for having released the water servicing centres under category III initially, and to change their category from III to II except saying that there was no manufacturing or processing in the premises. However the opposite parties have the right to reclassify the Consumer category as per clause 3.4 of General Terms and Conditions Supply. But the opposite parties raised back billing for six months duly changing the category of the complainant’s services from III to II without issuing any notice as required under clause 3.4.1 of GTCS which speaks as follows.
“Whether a consumer has been classified under a particular category and is billed accordingly and it is subsequently found that the classification is not correct (subject to the condition that the consumer does not alter the category/purpose of usage of the premises without prior intimation to the designated officer of the company), the consumer will be informed through a notice, of the proposed reclassification, duly giving him an opportunity to file any objection within a period of 15 days. The company after due consideration of the consumer’s reply if any, may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills if necessary even with retrospective effect, of three months in the case of domestic and agricultural categories and six months in the case of other categories”. In accordance with the above clause, the opposite parties shall issue 15 days notice to the consumer’s of the proposed reclassification after due consideration of the consumer’s reply if any may alter the classification and suitably revise the bills if necessary even with retrospective effect.
12. But in the instant case the opposite parties have clearly admitted that they have not issued any notice to the complainant before changing of their services category from III to II. Therefore the Forum clearly directed the opposite parties to change the category of the complainant’s services. It is not correct to change the category of the complainant’s services and to raise back billing of six months without issuing 15 days prior notice as per clause3.4.1 of GTCS and as such effecting change of category and back billing needs cancellation as the opposite parties cannot effect reclassification of complainant’s services category unilaterally without issuing notice. This shows clearly that the opposite parties failed to issue the notice prior to reclassification of the category of the complainant from III to II.
13. Inspite of the order issued by the Forum for Redressal Grievances of APCPDCL the opposite party did not comply with the orders of the said Forum. After perusal of the records it clearly shows that the opposite parties did not comply with the orders of the Forum. Hence it shows their negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence, we are of view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, by not giving any opportunity to the complainant by issuing notice and to here his version and then take a decision on reclassification of their service connection.
14. In the result the complaint is allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to withdraw the excess bill raised under category II with surcharges if any from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards costs of the complaint within 30 days from the date of this order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 26th day of June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT:
NIL
ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
-NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1Photo copy of letter dt.29.10.2010 sent by the Assistant Account Officer,
Electricity Revenue Officer Town, Anantapur to The assistant Engineer
D-5 section APCPDCL, Anantapur.
Ex.A2Photo copy of order dt.14.10.2010 pass by the Forum for Redressal of
Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL, Hyderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
NIL
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
