Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smr C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 29th day of July, 2003
C.D. No.98/2002
Dr.K.Nganna, Retd., Professor of Medicine,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri I. Joseph
-Vs-
The Asst Accounts Officer,
Electric Revenue Office,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool Dist.
.. . Opposite party represented
By His Counsel Sri. D.Sreenivasulu.
O R D E R
This consumer dispute case of the complainant is for restraining the opposite party from threating the complainant as defaulter and to direct the opposite party to furnish the correct bill and to pay him compensation and Rs.1,000/- as exemplary costs and also grant him all other reliefs to which he is entitled in the exigencies of the case.
The brief facts of the complainant’s case as per his invalid complaint which wants his verification of his contents are that a bill for Rs.125/- for S.C.NO.447 was delivered lately to him without date and the particulars as to the rate charged for units breeching his right for information. The amount to be demanded for 29 units consumed under the category No.1 is to be calculated at the rate of Rs.1.35ps. Per unit in the slab of first 50 units and which works out to Rs.55.35 rounded to Rs.55.00, the energy charges levied in the said bill was Rs.100/- in excess of Rs.45/- than payable. The opposite party did not respond to his protest dated 05.03.2002.
The opposite party in pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case contested the matter filing his written version. It besides questioning the maintainability of the complainant case law and facts deny any arbitrary conduct of the opposite party though it admits the omission of the date on the said bill of the consumption, allege it as neither intentional nor willful as arising due to the teething problem in the spot billing system and due to the meter readers in advertency by over sight for which the meter readers were suitably instructed not to repeat the said king of mistakes. It further submits that on the inspection of the Assistant Engineer in February, 2002 the connected load to S.C.NO.4447 of the complainant was found 250 watts as against the connected load of 250 watts and hence the tariff was raised as per the minimum tariff i.e., Rs.50/- Rs.10/- per month applicable to the load above 250 watts. The complainant paid the said bill on 21.03.2002 after being explained and satisfied of the above situation. As the bill was paid by the complainant within the permissible time the question of treating him as defaulter and threatening to disconnect doesn’t arise and so for want of proper cause of action seek the dismissal of the complainant’s case.
5. To the written version, the opposite party encloses letter date. 27.04.2002 of the Assistant Engineer, Operation, and Nandikotkur addressed to the Assistant Accounts Officer Sub- E.R.O Nandikotkur and a Xerox of the spot bill book of Nandikotkur section date. 05.03.2002. In addition to that the opposite party files his sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its written version and documents filed.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficient conduct or deficient service of the opposite party entitling him to the relief sought.
7. The complainant except taking several averments in his invalid complaint which is wanting due verification by him, did not made any endeavor to substantiate them by any of his evidence or any of his sworn affidavit to that effect nor got marked any documents on his behalf in support of his contention.
8. Even though they said un-attested Xerox bill enclosed to the complainant to be taken into consideration for a while in view of the admission of it by the opposite party as to the absence of the date thereon, as the pleas of the opposite party as to inadvertent mistake of the opposite party meter reader was not disputed by the complainant’s side and also of the reasons averred for charging with the tariff that is applicable to the connected load over and above 250 watts and other averments by the opposite party in his written version also being not denied by the complainant there appears no such serious deficiency of service or deficient conduct of the opposite party in issuing the said bill which is intelligible as to the period to which it relates to and the last date for its payment and the fact of the category upto 250 watts over and above 250 watts. Further the complainant did not deny the alleged fact of its due payment within time after satisfying of the reasons for omission of the date and the tariff circumstances of the case of the complainant appears to be to flimsy and technical leaving no material prejudiced and amounting to any such serious deficiency of service which may justify and warrant his entitleness to the claims made.
Therefore, in the result, the complaint is dismissed and in the circumstances each of the party to this case to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court, this the 29th day of July, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite party
-Nil- -Nil-
