BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) SANGAREDDY, MEDAK DISTRICT.
Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanayma, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
Smt U.Sunita, M.A., Lady Member
Sri Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Tuesday, the 12th day of MAY, 2009
CC.No.40 of 2008
Between:
G. Eashwar S/o Balnarsoji,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Ramakkapeeta (V),
Dubbak Mandal, Medak District.
… Complainant
And
1. The Asst. Engineer O.P.A.P.E.P.D.C.L.,
Dubbak Village and Mandal,
Medak District.
2. The Asst. Account Officer,
ERO/APCPDCL/Siddipet,
Medak District.
3. The Asst. Division Engineer,
CT/METERS/Sangareddy town,
Medak District.
….Opposite parties
This case came up for final hearing before us on 24.04.2009 in the presence of Sri. Ch. Baswaraj, advocate for complainant and Sri. B.A.S. Reddy, advocate for opposite parties No. 1 to 3, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to restore power supply to meter No. 563 of the complainant immediately and also to direct return of additional amount of Rs.8705/-
-2-
by the opposite parties and to further direct to pay loss of daily earning of Rs.5,000/- from the date of disconnection and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1) The complainant is a resident of Ramakkapeeta Village, Dubbak Mandal, District Medak. In the year, 1998 the complainant applied for electricity connection to run a rise mill and on the direction of the opposite parties, on 21.09.1998 the complainant deposited Rs.52,500/- for connection with the capacity of 35 HP. There upon connection was given on 23.09.1998 by allotting separate transformer and meter No. 563 in favour of the complainant and since then the complainant has been running the rice mill in the name and style Sri Rama Rice Mill. During May, 2006 due to heavy rain the meter and transformer were burnt. Complainant informed the same to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 who forwarded the information to opposite party No. 3. There upon opposite party No. 3, along with opposite parties No. 1 and 2, inspected the rice mill of the complainant and directed him to deposit Rs.5,700/- to install new transformer. Accordingly it was deposited. For four months after installation of new meter and transformer, the complainant received electricity consumption bills as per the consumption made by him and the complainant paid the said bills. All of a sudden on 14.03.2007 the opposite party sent a bill for Rs.17,763/-. On receipt of the same the complainant approached opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and stated about the abnormal bill. They replied that by over sight the bill amount was shown more and directed him to pay Rs.1,840/- only by making correction in the bill dt 14.03.2007. The complainant paid the same. Again in the next month on 04.04.2007 bill was sent for Rs.25,800-16ps. The complainant informed the abnormal again to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 directed the complainant to deposit Rs.13,050/- otherwise the connection will be disconnected. Because it was the season for rice mill business, the complainant deposited Rs.13,050/- and there after has been paying electricity bills regularly. During July, 2008 the complainant went to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. They refused to receive the consumption bill amount of Rs.4,484/- for the month of June and demanded to pay Rs.19,061/- . The complainant refused stating that he has been paying electricity bills regularly. Inspite of it the opposite parties disconnected power supply to the rice mill of the complainant due to which the
-3-
complainant stopped his business. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. If the electricity connection is not restored the complainant will be put to heavy loss. Hence the complaint.
2) The claim is resisted by opposite parties by filling a counter to the following effect:
On the application of the complainant service connection No.563 was released to Sri Rama Rice Mill, Ramakkapeta Village on 27.09.1999 with a load of 35 HP. He paid the C.C. charges regularly till October, 2006. Bill amount of Rs.1,182/- for November, 2006 was not paid. As per regulation No. 6 of 2004 of the AP Electricity regulatory commission, an amount of Rs.643/- was deducted from the deposit towards interest. The due amount of Rs.1,182/- for 11/2006 was cleared by the complainant in the month of December, 2006. For the month of 1/2007 the complainant paid Rs.8,000/- only as against the demand of Rs.16,555/- and balance of Rs.8,555/- remained unpaid. For the month of 2/2007 the demand was for Rs.5,311/- and the same has not been paid and there by the arrears accumulated to Rs.13,866/-.
3) During May, 2006 energy meter of the service was burnt due to heavy rain and on payment of Rs.5,700/- towards cost of the old meter, it was replaced by fixing electronic trivector meter bearing No. 5267993 of L & T make with its initial reading at 0000094. After change of the old meter also the service has been billed with old mudsling factor (M.F) 10 instead of new M.F.1 (one). In the month of February, 2007 the defect was detected by the concerned A.E./ O.P/ Dubbak i.e. opposite party No. 1 and through his letter dt 14.02.2007 he requested opposite party No. 2 to revise the E.C. bills for the period 15.02.2006 to 2/2007. Accordingly opposite party No. 2 rectified the defect and issued revised C.C. bill and communicated to the complainant through demand bill for 4/2007 in a sum of Rs.25,800/-. As regards the allegation of the complainant that all of a sudden on 14.03.2007 opposite parties sent a bill for Rs.17,763/- , it is submitted that during March, 2007 C.C. bill was issued for Rs.3,897/- excluding the arrears of Rs.13,866/- from out of the total amount of Rs.17,763/- since the C.C. bills issued earlier were not rectified after the receipt of the letter of opposite party No. 1 by opposite party No. 2. In the mean time the complainant approached opposite party No. 2 with a complaint that excess bill was issued for the month of 3/2007 then opposite party
-4-
No. 2 based on the information of opposite party No. 1 through his letter dt 14.02.2007 detected the defects of calculations applying old multiplying factor 10 instead of M.F. 1 and rectified the amount of the said C.C. bill to Rs.1,840/- which fact was explained to him and he admitted. The complainant paid the rectified amount of Rs. 1,840/- excluding the arrears of the previous bills which amount the department accepted towards part payment of the C.C. bills. C.C. bill was rectified for the period 12.05.2006 to 2/2007 duly including the capacitor surcharge as per test report of opposite party No. 3 as the capacitor was not working. Hence proposed 25% surcharge. This aspect was detected by opposite party No. 3 while replacing the old burnt meter in the presence of the complainant and opposite party No. 1 and the same was informed to the complainant and his signature and those of the officers who were present there were obtained therefore C.C. bill dt 04.04.2007 for 4/2007 for Rs.25,800/- was issued. The details are:
i). Consumption charges for April, 2007 Rs.4,345/-
ii).Capacitor Charge Rs.7,590/-
iii).Arrears upto 3/2007 Rs.13,866/-
Total: Rs.25,800/-
4) As regards the payment of Rs.13,050/-, the complainant was availing the supply of power to his service without paying the arrears of C.C. bills, so opposite party No. 1 sent his staff to collect current monthly amount of Rs.4,345/- of 4/2007 + arrears of Rs. 21,455/-, total Rs.25,800/- from the complainant. The complainant has paid Rs.10,000/- on 07.04.2007 and Rs.3050/- on 25.04.2007 total Rs.13050/- towards current month demand and received towards part of arrears after explaining the due amount. The balance arrears is Rs.12,800/-. For non payment of current month charges for 7/2007 Rs.4484/- + the arrears amount of Rs.12800/-, opposite party No. 1 has disconnected the power supply to the service on 27.07.2008. The department had accepted the part payments whenever the complainant paid. He did not approach opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 on or before the due date i.e. 18.07.2008 as alleged. He approached opposite party No.1 after effecting disconnection on 27.07.2008 for non payment of C.C. bill for the month of 7/2007 within due date 08.07.2008. The amount of Rs. 8705/- was paid by the complainant towards part payment of arrears of C.C. bills but not towards additional
-5-
amount and it was received and adjusted against arrears of Rs.21455/- in 4/2007 but not as additional amount and hence the claim for its return is untenable and does not arise.
5). The dispute raised by the complainant relates to recovery of Rs.8705/- towards past period consumption bills coupled with stoppage of power to his service. Such dispute has statutory remedy under the Electricity Act, 2003 and its rules since the relationship between the complainant and the electricity board is contractual, hence this forum has no jurisdiction and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service. The various claims made in the complainant are untenable and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6) Evidence affidavit of complainant and that of opposite party No. 1 are filed to prove the respective contentions in their pleadings. Exs. A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Written arguments of complainant filed. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties. Written arguments are also not filed. Oral arguments are not advanced on either side. Perused the record.
7) The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for reconnection of electricity supply to service connection No. 563 of his rice mill and for the various amounts claimed?
Point:
8) Complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have been giving excess consumption bills for his rice mill bearing service connection No. 563 by showing arrears in huge amounts, even though the complainant has been paying the C.C. charges every month regularly. The case of the opposite parties is that till October, 2006 the complainant has paid C.C. charges regularly but he has not paid the November, 2006 C.C. bill amount of Rs.1,182/- and it was paid in December, 2006. It is mentioned in the counter and evidence affidavit of opposite parties that out of the actual consumption charges of Rs.1,825/- for the month of November, 2006, an amount of Rs.623/- was deducted, which is interest on deposit amount. If Rs.623/- is deducted from the consumption charges of Rs.1,825/- for the month of November, 2006 the net amount comes to Rs.1,202/- but the bill amount according to them is Rs.1,182/-. The discrepancy is not explained.
-6-
9) According to the complainant on 14.03.2007 the opposite parties sent a bill for Rs.17,763/- and when he approached them and questioned about the huge amount, they said that it is by over sight and directed him to pay Rs.1840/- only, by making correction in the bill to that effect. Ex. A1 is bunch of electricity bills and receipts which contains the bill dt 14.03.2007 which is referred above. The correction is seen in the bill as stated by the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that in the very next month on 04.04.2007 bill was sent to him for Rs.25,800-16ps and when he again approached opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 they have directed to him to pay Rs.13,050/- and he paid the same under threat of disconnection because it was harvesting season which is a very good season for rice mill business. In the bunch of bills in Ex. A1 the bill dt 04.04.2007 for Rs.25,800-16ps, the receipt dt 25.04.2007 is for Rs.3,050/- and another receipt dt 07.04.2007 for Rs.10,000/-are seen.. Opposite parties admitted the said payments. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant paid Rs. 1840/- excluding the arrears of the previous bills for the month of 3/07 and said payment was accepted by the department towards part payment of C.C. bills.
10) According to the opposite parties after the change of old meter also the service has been billed with old multiplying factor (M.F.10) instead of new multiplying factor (M.F. 1) and the said defect was detected during February, 2007 and there upon revised C.C. bills were issued rectifying the defect from 15.02.2006 to 2/2007.
11) Like wise the parties are in dispute regarding various other bills also. Admittedly there were defects in calculation by the opposite parties. Except issuing bills, the opposite parties have not intimated the complainant in writing about their detecting of defects and issuing of revised bills. Simply by issuing revised bills all consumers cannot be expected to know the methods adopted by the department of opposite parties. When the opposite parties stated in their counter that they have issued revised bills for the period from 15.02.2006 to 2/2007, the same is not denied by the complainant. The said bills are not filed by the complainant. The complainant has marked Exs. A1 to A4 on his behalf without explaining the purpose for which they are marked, with particular reference to the circumstance with which they are connected. For example the purpose in marking in Ex. A3 is not known. In his evidence affidavit the complainant has stated at the end of para 4 as follows: “In
-7-
support of my case, I filed certain documents at the time of filing compliant which may be marked as exhibits in A-series”. According to us a detailed enquiry is necessary to ascertain the arrears payable by the complainant if the case of the opposite parties has to be accepted. This forum is established to dispose of cases in a summary procedure. The complainant may therefore approach court of law / Tribunal for appropriate relieves. No relief can be granted in this forum. The point is answered accordingly.
12). In the result the complaint is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the complainant in seeking appropriate relieves in any court of law / Tribunal. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 12th day of May, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER MALE MEMBER
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1) The Complainant
2) The Opposite parties
3) Spare copy Copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On __________
Dis.No. /2009, dt.
