BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 27th day of January, 2006
C.D.No.95/2005
Singam Setty Subbarayudu,S/o. S.Chinna Subbarayudu,
H.No.1-7-7, Anantharamaiah street,Allagadda town, Kurnool district. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Assistant Engineer (operation),
A.P.C.P.D.C. Limited,T.V.Road,Allagadda, Kurnool District. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 25.1.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri P.Sivasudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This C.D complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 11&12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for mental agony, to refund Rs.3,133/-received from the complainant with interest, to direct the opposite party to change the electricity connection from category II to I, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs wish the complainant’s is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the owner of the house bearing No.1-7-7 of Anantha Ramaiah Street, Alagadda and the service connection No.HSC-5823 was provided to his house and he was regularly paying consumption charges. The bill dated 1-11-2003 for Rs.367/- was received by the complainant with due date of payment on 14-11-2003 and disconnection date on 21-11-2003, the complainant paid the said bill on 12-11-2003 vide receipt No.339413. Inspite of said payment the service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 10-11-2003 without any reasonable cause. There after the complainant approached the opposite party a number of times to restore the electricity connection to his house, being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice on 10-12-2003 which was received by the opposite party but did not reply. The complainant’s sun-in-law approached the opposite party and demanded restoration of electricity to the complainant’s house and the opposite party demanded Rs.3,081/- for restoration. There after on 17-12-2003 the complainant’s sun-in-law paid Rs.3,081/- + Rs.50/- as reconnection charges on behalf of complainant and the next day the opposite party restored the electricity connection. The complainant’s family suffered for more than 40 days without electricity supply and the opposite parties collected the demand amount without any demand notice. In the month of March, 2003 the electricity connection of the complainant’s house was changed from category I to II without any reason. Even after approach by the complainant to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Alagadda and A.D.E the opposite parties did not change the service connection from category II to I. Above said lapsive conduct of opposite parties constrained the complainant to file this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz. (1) Demand notice of opposite parties dated 1-11-2003 for Rs.367/- (2) Receipt for payment of Ex.A1 bearing No.94483 (3) Bill for Rs.3,131/- issued by opposite party dated 20-11-2003 (4) Receipt for payment of Ex.A3 dated 17-12-2003 (5) Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party dated 10-12-2003 (6) Postal acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex.A5 by opposite party (7) Letter of complainant to opposite party along with endorsement of A.D.E, Alagadda dated 30-11-2003 (8) Electricity bill of opposite party for Rs.166/- and (9) Electricity bill of opposite parties for Rs.132/- dated 1-9-2003, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A9 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the affidavit of P.Dastagiri. The complainant and the third party suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party and caused interrogatories to opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties questions maintainability of the complainant’s case either in law or on facts and admits the complainant as the owner of the house No.1-7-7 Anatha Ramaiah Street, Alagadda and electrical energy supplied through HSC-5823 it alleges that the complainant utilized the said electrical energy for non domestic purpose and the sum of Rs.3,081/- were arrears as the said amount was not paid by the complainant the supply was disconnected on 10-11-2003 after payment of said amount by some person who is known to the complainant on 17-12-2003, the next day i.e. 18-12-2003, the electricity supply was restored and the said payment was made without any protest. The electricity supply was changed from category I to II basing on the inspection report dated 19-10-2003 and when the complainant approached the opposite party stating that he has removed grinder from his house the opposite party recommended for change of category II to I. But later the opposite party came to know that the complainant played fraud and was utilizing electricity supply for non domestic purpose, hence on 2-12-2003 the electricity service was inspected jointly by A.A.O, Alagadda and Sub Engineer and found the complainant using the supply for non domestic purpose. At the time of inspection the complainant’s wife was present and refused to sign in the inspection report the earlier letter canceling the change of category II to I was cancelled and the category II was finalized to the complainant’s HSC number. Therefore, the complainant as suppressed the true facts and came to the Forum with unclean hands and filed this vexatious complaint and seeks for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party filed the following the documents viz. (1) Inspection notes of Sri.D.Ravikanth Chowdary, dated 19-10-2003 along with Annexure (2) Inspection notes of M.Nagaraju, dated 2-12-2003 (3) Office copy of letter dated 3-11-2003 of opposite party to complainant and (4) Office copy of letter dated 2-12-2003 of opposite party to A.A.O, Alagadda, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B4 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and the third party and suitebely replied to the interrogatories caused by complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party.
8. It is a case of the complainant that he is a bonafide consumer of opposite party in domestic category and used to pay bills regularly. The complainant received a demand notice dated 1-11-2003 vide Ex.A1 for Rs.367/- and paid the said demand amount vide Ex.A2 on 12-11-2003, inspite of said payment his service was disconnected without any reasonable cause and changed the category from I to II and issued a bill for Rs.3,131/- vide Ex.A3 which the complainant paid vide Ex.A4. But as against to it the written version of opposite party alleges that during inspection it was detected that the complainant was utilizing domestic supply to non domestic purpose, hence, it was recommended to change the supply from category I to II with effect from 1-5-2001 vide Ex.B1 and the bill vide Ex.A3 was issued under commercial category and the complainant paid the said bill vide Ex.A4 without any protest.
9. The Ex.A7 is a letter of complainant addressed to opposite party, it requests the opposite party to change his service connection from category II to I, the said exhibits bears an endorsement of opposite party, it says that by over sight they have changed the supply from category I to II and as the complainant was using grinder for domestic purpose, his request to change the category from II to I was accepted. It was further alleged by opposite party that there after he found that the complainant was using the said supply for non domestic purpose i.e. grinder vide Ex.B2 inspection notes. Therefore the request to change the category from II to I does not arise. But in the absence of any cogent substance in support of supra stated contentions of the opposite party as in the Ex.B1 the opposite party changes the category from I to II, in the Ex.A7 he changes the said category from II to I and again in Ex.B2 he says that category cannot be changed as requested, the above contentions of the opposite party cannot be accepted, except stating that complainant was using grinder at his house, did not place any substantiating material to be relied on and to come up a conclusion that the complainant was using grinder for commercial purpose under category II, the Ex.A7 says by over sight category changed, subsequent to that again in Ex.B2 he says category cannot be changed hence, it appears that changing of category by opposite party is at his whims and fancies and not as per rules of Indian Electricity Act. Therefore what follows is that the change in category by opposite party was without any proper basis and which the opposite party cannot do.
10. The next issue to be decided is whether the opposite party is entitled to claim misuse amount of Rs.3,131/-, the only basis appears to be the inspection notes vide Ex.B1 and B2, it was stated in the inspection notes that the complainant was using domestic supply for non domestic purpose and the same was detected during inspection only and requests to change the category from I to II by issuing a bill for Rs.3,081/- under commercial category from 1-5-2001. But there is nothing on records to explain the basis for such an assumption and no material is placed by the opposite parties for claiming Rs.3,081/- and there is nothing in Ex.B1 and B2 to conclude that the complainant was utilizing domestic supply for non domestic supply. Hence, what appears is that the opposite party cannot arbitrarily issue bill for any amount without any proper and valid basis and mere inspection notes cannot found such basis.
11. To sum up all the above material indicates that the opposite party unilaterally changed the complainant’s service connection from category I to II and issued bill for Rs.3,081/- without any basis. Hence, there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party’s side towards the complainant right from the date of disconnecting the service connection to the complainant’s house.
12. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service on opposite party’s and the complainant is certainly entitled to compensation for mental agony he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite parties, as the complainant is a consumer of opposite party and the damages suffered at the deficiency of service of the opposite party and the loss suffered by the complainant is indemnifiable as per the decision of Chathisgarh State Commission between Chathisgarh State Electricity Board V/s Ganaram Sahu reported in III (2005) CPJ page 625 and Delhi State Commission between B.S.E.S. Yamuna Power Ltd., V/s Mohan Lal Gaur reported in IV (2004) CPJ page 510.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to change the service connection of the complainant from category II to I and to adjust the already received amount of Rs.3,081/- under wrong category in future bills and to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order in default the above awarded amount shall be paid with 12percent interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 27th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses of Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Demand notice of opposite parties dated 1-11-2003 for Rs.367/-
Ex.A2 Receipt for payment of Ex.A1 bearing No.94483
Ex.A3 Bill for Rs.3,131/- issued by opposite party dated 20-11-2003
Ex.A4 Receipt for payment of Ex.A3 dated 17-12-2003
Ex.A5 Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite
party dated 10-12-2003
Ex.A6 Postal acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex.A5 by opposite party
Ex.A7 Letter of complainant to opposite party along with endorsement of A.D.E,
Alagadda dated 30-11-2003
Ex.A8 Electricity bill of opposite party for Rs.166/-
Ex.A9 Electricity bill of opposite parties for Rs.132/- dated 1-9-2003
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Inspection notes of Sri.D.Ravikanth Chowdary, dated 19-10-2003 along
with Annexure
Ex.B2 Inspection notes of M.Nagaraju, dated 2-12-2003
Ex.B3 Office copy of letter dated 3-11-2003 of opposite party to complainant
Ex.B4 Office copy of letter dated 2-12-2003 of opposite party to A.A.O,
Alagadda
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri P.Sivasudarshan., Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
