This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 15-11-2007 in the presence of  Sri.V.Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainant , and in the presence of Sri. G.Harender Reddy, Advocate  for Opposite Parties; on perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant started a  granite Polishing unit under the name and style as “Sai Srinivasa Granite Tiles” situated at  plot No. 95,  Sy.No.311, 324 IDA Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam.

3.       That the complainant has applied and was granted for   a capacity of 49 HP  electrical capacity by the opposite parties vide S.No.130158914.  After paying all the amounts the opposite parties have installed new meter on 11-11-2005 and power connection was released.  But on the same day the meter was burnt the fact  was intimated to the opposite parties.  On 12-11-05 only   two polishing were tested.  The two units have the motor connection of 3 HP each.  

4.         The opposite parties 5 & 6 have been demanding Rs.25,000/- towards illegal gratification for having  electrical connection.  The complainant refused to pay any amount. The opposite party 5 & 6 stating that they were demanding the amount on behalf  of all the opposite parties and that if he did not pay he has to face adverse circumstances.  But the complainant  did not oblige  their illegal demand.  Then the opposite party 5 & 6  then challenged that they knew very well to get the payment .

5.        That in furtherance of their nefarious design on 18-11-2005 the opposite parties  have installed ostensibly a new meter.    After a few days the complainant cause to know that  it was an already a burnt meter.  As such it was not  recording any consumption.  Though it was brought to the notice of the opposite parties they did not take any action  to  rectify the defect of the meter.

6.        That on 20-12-2005 the opposite party  have inspected  the unit premises of the complainant and stated that the meter was burnt and replaced it with a new meter.   But the opposite parties letter  issued the impugned bill for Rs.74,985/- dated 1-1-2006 alleged for December 2005 consumption of 19200 units whereas there was no present recording.  It was a fact that the preceding bill was for Rs.1,833/-  wherein the reading of consumption was 10 units for the period of November, 2005.

7.       The remaining nine polishing units were installed by “Durga Engineering Works”  on 28-12-2005.  As the 9 units were not  installed  by the date of so called inspection there was no chance of utilizing   much consumption.  Even if 11 units were functioned there cannot be such consumption of 19,200/-.

8.       That  the opposite parties  have not given any inspection report or any assessment report to the complainant  and they had taken any signature of the complainant or his men that they had inspected the meter.  There was no assessment bill  an inflated bill was only sent showing such a huge consumption.

9.     The bill was in question  manipulated bill created by the opposite parties  as the complainant refused  to pay the bribe amount.  There was no basis for such a huge amounted bill, though the complainant requested for correction of  the bill, there was no response so far.

10.     The opposite parties are threatening the complaint to disconnect the supply.  Hence this complaint.  Direct the opposite parties  to withdraw the bill No.1580, dated 1-1-2006 for Rs.74,985/- and to pay damages  & compensation of Rs.20,000/- and not to harass the complainant.

11.      The complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:

(i)      Original bill No.1582 bill dated : 1-12-2005 for Rs.1833/-

(ii) Original bill No.1580, dated 1-1-2006 for Rs.74,985/-

(iii)xerox copy of a letter addressed by Divisional Engineer to the complainant, dated 23-9-05.

(iv) xerox copy of letter Durga  Engineering works, dated 28-12-2005

(v) xerox copy of letter addressed by the  complainant to the Asst. Account Officer, Khammam dated 12-1-06.

12.     Counter filed by the opposite parties.  It is false to say that the opposite parties demanded Rs.25,000/- towards illegal gratification for having providing electrical connection and he refused to pay any amount towards bribe.  It is false to say that opposite parties challenged that they would get the payment for his pocket by hook or crook.

13.      It is submitted that the complainant had applied  for extension of supply to the factory on 15-9-05 through single window, for 49 HP connected documents.  Estimate was sanctioned to the   petitioner on 28-9-05 to pay the development charges, security deposit and service line charges and the complainant paid the same on 27-9-2005 and handed over on 28-9-2005.  The work was taken  up and the service was released on 11-11-2005.  Infact  the meters were replaced in the presence of the complainant and signature of Ch.Anjaiah was obtained on the initial reading.  Hence replacement of meter  with a burnt meter is a false allegation.  The bill for an amount of Rs.74,985/- for December , consumption as the meter was burnt.  In this regard the opposite parties are submitting following information. 

(a) Service was released on 11-11-2005 with an initial reading of 18.8 in the presence of Ch.Anjaiah Supervisor,  particulars of meter are M.NO.184022 meter Dukearnics, cap 125/5A.

(b) Consumer informed on 16-11-2005 meter was burnt  and the readings are not being displayed.

© The meter was replaced on 16-11-2005 with an initial readings  of 435 in the presence of Sri Ch.Anjaiah, Supervisor, particulars of meter No.184035 Make  Dukearnics Cap.125 /5A.

(D)  It is noticed by the meter readers i.e., Asst.Engineer, Operation Town –III, on 23-12-2005, that the meter was again failed.  The consumer was informed to verify the circuitry system as the meters are burning frequently only to this service whereas all others services in the locality are functioning normal. 

(E)                The bill was issued to the service based on the assessed consumption. 

14.               As per the terms and conditions of supply the assessment shall be made on the basis of connected load and hours of usage of electricity by the consumers where the previous consumption is not available.  Hence, there is no previous record regarding the billing and the assessed consumption was calculated by taking sixteen working hours per day and thirty working days.  The connected load was taken as 49 HP, which was sanctioned load.  

15.               The same facts were informed to the complainant and asked to pay the amounts.  The bill was also served on the complainant and disconnection order was issued by Asst.Accounts Officer/ E.R.O., after completion of due date.  Thereafter, the above service was disconnected on 7-2-2006 to collect the bill.  As per the orders of this Forum, the service was restored.

16.               That the complainant failed to follow procedure to make any objection on the demand notice issued by the opposite parties and straight away filed this complaint..  As such this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

17.               Hence, we are prayed Hon’ble Forum  may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

18.               The opposite parties  filed the following documents:

i) Copy of inspection report, dt.11-11-2005.

ii) Copy of inspection report, dt.16-11-2005.

iii) Copy of inspection report, dt.26-12-2005.

iv)  xerox  copy of B.P.Ms.No.(Opn) 18, dated  10-6-96 with Annexure –I.

19.     The points for consideration.

(i) Whether this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain this matter.

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed for?

ISSUE No-1:

The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is running granite factory for profit.  Hence this complaint is not maintainable as per section 21(d) Consumer Protection Act.

            For this the contention of the complainant is that the complainant is an educated person searching for a suitable job and he came to know that the Government is providing all sorts of help to set up small units for their self-employment.  Therefore the complainant started this polishing granite tiles unit under the self  employment scheme. 

          Hence, we are of the opinion  that  this transaction is not at all a commercial one.  Commercial purpose does not include use by a person and goods, bought and use by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of  earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.  Hence this  point  is answered accordingly infavour of the complainant.

ISSUE NO-2:

            It is  an admitted fact that the opposite parties have installed a new meter on 11-11-05 and power connection was released to the unit of the complainant .

          It is also an admitted fact that the first meter was burnt and another second meter was fixed on 16-11-05 by the opposite parties.

            It is also an admitted fact that the second meter was also burnt and a new meter was fixed on 26-12-05 for the service connection of the complainant.

          It is the contention of the opposite party that they informed to the complainant to verify the circuitry system as the meters are burning frequently.  To support this contention the opposite parties did not file any letter issued to the complainant regarding this fact.

            It is an admitted fact that the complainant has received two consumer bills first bill dated 1-12-05 for 10 units and for an amount of Rs.1833/- towards consumption charges.  Again the complainant received a second bill dated 1-1-06 reading shows nil and bill shows an amount of Rs.74,985/-   

            For this the contention of the opposite parties is that  as per the terms and conditions of supply the assessment shall be made on the basis of connected load  and hours of usage of electricity by the consumers where the previous consumption is not available.  There is no previous record regarding the billing and  the  assessed consumer was calculated by taking 16 working hours per day and 30 working days.  The connected load was taken as 49 Hp which was sanctioned load.

            To prove this contention the opposite parties filed a xerox copy BPMS No.(OPN) 18, dated 10-6-1996 along with the Annexure -I .  This memo and Annexure shows formula for assessment of consumer when meters are struck up/burnt/not working/door lock/etc.

            The opposite party filed a citation reported in vol-I(2005) CPJ 33

BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA

Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.P.S.Chodary, President

            & Dr.Asna Ahmad, Member.

ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER                                      -Appellant

Versus

SHYAM SUNDAR PODDAR                                                       -Respondent

Appeal No.67 of 1996 – Decided on 21-9-2004.

          Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Electricity – Excessive Bill – Complainant’s meter out of order – Bill sent on average basis considering load factor and area- Premises inspected in presence of complainant – load factor not denied- Bill not excessive or arbitrary – no deficiency proved against Electricity board – Complaint wrongly allowed by Forum- Order set aside in appeal.

            In this case the electrical meter of the complainant was defective his premises were inspected in the present of the complainant on 5-11-92 and thereafter the bill was sent on the basis of average billing. The average unit @ 541 units per month was worked out on the load factor 2505 watts.

            But in these case  except the first bill there was no bills at all to come to the conclusion for the basis of average bill.  Here the opposite parties adopted a procedure  mentioned in B.P.Ms.No.(opn) 18 dated 10-6-96  along with Annexure I when the meters were burnt.  Hence present citation is not applicable to this case.

             As per the above memo and Annexure-I they calculated the same  and arrived to a conclusion of the second bill that the consumption of the complainant was 19,200 units and for which he has to pay Rs.74,985/-

            The complainant wrote a letter to the Assistant Accounts Officer, Khammam who is opposite party No-1 on 12-1-06 stating the above facts and asked the opposite party No-1 to furnished the basis to arrive that much amount of Rs.74,985/-.  But the opposite party No-1 did not give any reply  nor he did not issue the revised bill as prayed  by the complainant in that letter.

            The opposite parties admittedly did not file any calculation memo as per this B.O.M.S.NO.(OPN) 18, dated 10-6-96/Annexure -I

          When the opposite parties issued this huge amount bill the complainant is having every right to know how this huge amount assessed and  levied by the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties did not  give any calculation memo or any explanation to the letter dated 12-1-06 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  This itself shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to the complainant.

Hence we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are deficiency in service to the complainant.  However  the complainant can approach appropriate forum for his grievance under the electricity act 2003.

In the result the complainant  is dismissed.  However we are not awarding any damages or costs.  The complaint can approach appropriate Forum for his grievance under the electricity act 2003.

Dictated  to Stenographer transcribed by her, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 23rd  day of November, 2007.

                                                                   President         Member             Member

                                                             District Consumers Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

Complainant                                                                        Opposite parties

Nil                                                                                                        Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

Complainant 

          Nil                                                        Opposite parties

                                                                                            Nil

                                              President              Member             Member                                                                          District Consumers Forum, Khammam