Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/08/67

Damaragidda Srinivasulu, S/o D.Narayana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Engineer, Town-II, AP Transco, Mahabubnagar n (3) Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri C.Rajender Kumar

27 Nov 2008

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 26^th day of November, 2008

 

                                                             Present:- Sri M.Rama Rao, B.A.,LL.B., President

     Sri P.Venkateshwara Rao, B.com., LL.B., Member

       Smt.B.Vijaya Kumari, M.Sc. B.Ed., C.C.P., Member

 

                                                                          C.C.NO. 67  Of   2008

 

Between:-

 

Damaragidda Srinivasulu S/o D. Narayana, age: 70 years, Occ: Business (owner of Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries), R/o H.No.1-7-152/E2, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar.  

                                                                                        

        … Complainant

And

1. The Asst. Engineer, Town-II, AP Transco, Mahabubnagar, Near Old Power House, Mahabubnagar.
2. The Asst. Divisional Officer, AP Transco, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar
3. Divisional Officer, AP Transco, Near Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.
4. Superintending Engineer, AP Transco, Near Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.
5. Electricity Revenue Officer, AP Transco, Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.

 

                                                                                      … Opposite Parties

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 19-11-2008,  in the presence of Sri C. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant and of Sri  V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for  opposite parties and having stoodover for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

 

 (Sri M.Rama Rao, President)

 

1.        This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.10,022-86/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., 30.6.2008 till the date of realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and also costs of the complaint.

 

2.     The complaint averments are as follows:- The complainant is the owner of Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries situated in land bearing Sy.No.91/AA, extent: Ac.01-02 guntas situated within the limits of Chinnadarpally village, Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar district.   The complainant is doing rice industry business since 2004 by obtaining power supply connection from the AP Transco.   The opposite parties are the officers of the AP Transco.   The complainant has obtained power supply of 75 HP for the rice industry.   The opposite parties fixed a three phase meter bearing Service No.0175236109, Cat-3A, Ph-3.  The complainant has started his rice industry in the year 2004 having motors of 75 HP and the same are running till this day without any variation.  The complainant is paying the regular monthly electricity consumption charges to the opposite parties as per the bills issued by OP.1.   As per previous bills the fixed demand charges were Rs.2,775/-.   But all of sudden the opposite parties issued a bill dated 7.6.2008 of electricity consumption of the complainant meter for Rs.26,014/- showing the fixed demand charges of Rs.12,797-86 ps.  Usually the fixed demand charges is not more than Rs.2,775/- only.   The complainant by seeing the bill dated 7.6.2008 approached the opposite parties and requested for correction of the bill amount as in the bill the amount of fixed demand charges are mistakenly shown in excess.   But the opposite parties did not consider the request of the complainant and on the other hand threatened if the total bill amount is not paid, the power supply will be disconnected.  Thus the complainant has made a written representation dated 20.6.2008 to the opposite parties.  But the OP.1 has issued a letter dated 27.6.2008 to the complainant stating that there is no fault in the meter and asked to pay the bill.  Thus the complainant has paid the bill amount under protest through D.D.No.811009 dated 30.6.2008 of SBH, Main Branch, Mahabubnagar along with a letter of protest.  After payment of bill supra in the month of July, 2008 on 8.7.2008 the opposite parties issued a bill to the complainant for Rs.12,628/- and the fixed demand charges shown as 2,775/-.   There are no changes in the consumption of electricity and the motors are as it is.   From the previous bill and the bill of July reveals the fault of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties have issued bill for excess amount in the bill dated 7.6.2008 by showing the fixed demand charges as Rs.12,797-86 ps. instead of Rs.2,775/-.   The opposite parties have collected an excess amount of Rs.10,022-86 ps. from the complainant towards the fixed demand charges in the bill dated 7.6.2008.   Though the complainant has represented the mistake in writing and asked to correct the bill, there is no positive response from the opposite parties.   As such being the consumer of the opposite parties, the complainant is compelled to approach this Hon’ble Forum with this complaint as the opposite parties rendered services in deficit by issuing wrong bill and collecting the amount there under.    As such the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.    Hence the complaint. 

 

3.     The opposite party Nos.2 to 5 have adopted the counter filed by the opposite party No.1. with the following averments:-   The complainant has obtained power supply of 75 HP for his Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries of Chinnadarpally village, Hanwada Mandal.  The meter fixed to the said firm bears Service No.01752-36109, Cate-3A, Ph-3.  But the maximum contracted load for the said firm is 75 HP.    The fixed demand charges for the above said load upto 75 HP is Rs.2,775/-.   If the demand or load of the consumption of electricity energy exceeds beyond 75 HP, the slab rate for the said load is changed and it comes under HT category I, at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA.   When the meter reading was recorded on 7.6.2008, the electricity consumption by the complainant for his firm was 65.63 KVA i.e., 82.04 HP, which exceeded by 7.04 HP of the contracted load.  Hence the complainant was charged at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA for 65.63 KVA which comes to Rs.12,797-85 ps.   Hence the bill was accordingly issued.  Since the bill was correctly calculated depending upon the meter reading and consumption of electricity and the rate fixed as per the norms as shown above, the request of the complainant to revise the bill was rejected and it was confirmed.  Since the complainant has to pay the bill amount within due date, failing which the electricity connection will be disconnected, the complainant has paid the said amount to avoid disconnection.   The opposite party has no personal grudge against the complainant to threaten him and the said allegation is false, incorrect and baseless, created for the purpose of this complaint only.  If the complainant fails to pay the bill amount within the due date the supply will automatically be disconnected as per Rules.  The representation of the complainant was not considered as the consumption of the electricity was more than fixed, hence the amount was calculated at the rate fixed for the said slab for consumption of more than 75 HP at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA for 65.63 KVA for HT Category I and the opposite party has not collected any excess amount from the complainant.  Subsequently when the electricity consumption was within 75 HP and there was no excess consumption, the bill was issued accordingly.   There is no necessity for the opposite party to issue any excess bill without any excess consumption.    There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no excess bill issued by the opposite party.   Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

4.  The complainant filed his affidavit and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-18.

 

5.  The opposite parties filed their affidavit and did not file any documents on their behalf. 

 

6.   The opposite parties filed their written arguments.  

 

7.  The point which falls for consideration is whether the complainant is  

entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

8.    The facts which are not in dispute are that the complainant is a consumer of OPs department having Service connection No.01752-36109 under Category-3A of Phase-3 to his Rice Mill.  The sanctioned load of power supply is 75 HP.  The fixed demand charges upto 75 HP is Rs.2,775/-.  The opposite parties issued bill dated 7.6.2008 vide  Ex.A-13 for Rs.26,014/- showing the fixed demand charges as Rs.12,797-86 ps.   The complainant approached the OP.1 and asked for correction of the bill amount.   The OP confirmed the bill and asked to pay the bill amount on or before the due date.  The complainant has paid the bill amount under protest.   The OPs issued another bill on 8.7.2008 for the month of July, wherein the OPs shown the fixed demand charges as Rs.2,775/-.   The complainant made representation to OPs through his letter dated 20.6.2008 i.e., Ex.A-14 and the OPs replied the same vide Ex.A-16.    There is no dispute on Exs.A-1 to A-18.    

 

9.     The main allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have issued bill for excess amount in the bill dated 7.6.2008 i.e., Ex.A-13 by showing the fixed demand charges as Rs.12,797-86 ps. instead of Rs.2,775/-.  The OP collected an excess amount of Rs.10,022-86 ps. from the complainant towards fixed demand charges, which is a clear violation of law and tantamount to deficiency of service.  

 

    On the other hand, the OPs vehemently contended that if the demand or load of the consumption of electricity energy exceeds beyond 75 HP the slab rate for the said load is changed at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA.  According to the bill the complainant consumed 65.63 KVA i.e., 82.04 HP which exceeded by 7.04 HP of the contracted load.  Hence the complainant was charged the consumption units at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA for 65.63 KVA which comes to Rs.12,797-86 ps.  Hence the disputed bill was accordingly issued.   As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.     

 

10.  We have perused the entire material available before us.  There is no dispute on any aspect except charging the fixed demand charges as Rs.12,797-86 ps.  instead of Rs.2,775/-.   The disputed bill dated 7.6.2008 is marked as Ex.A-13.    It is evident from this bill that the complainant consumed 3712 units during the billing period.  For that purpose Rs.12,249/- is charged towards Energy Charges.  Whereas OPs charged fixed demand charges as Rs.12,797-86 ps.   The learned counsel for OPs vehemently argued that the complainant consumed excess load of 7.04 HP, which comes under the slab rate of Rs.195/- per KVA.  The learned counsel for the complainant in rebuttal argued that the OPs are misguiding the Forum and interpreting the provisions.    He argued that his client never disputed the charging of energy charges at Rs.195/- per KVA because he is liable to pay the energy charges according to the slab rate.   However the only dispute is on charging fixed demand charges.   The OPs from the date of installation charging fixed amount of Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges even on the occasion of consumption of energy is more than the present.    Therefore the OPs are trying to escape from their liability by showing another reason which is not in dispute.   The leaned counsel has drawn our attention on Exs.A-1 to A-12 to substantiate his arguments.   We have carefully gone through the Exs.A-1 to A-12.   All these are electricity bills issued by OPs for the same service connection and for the same power supply of 75 HP.   It is evident from seeing the Exs.A-5 to A-7 and A-9 and A-10 that these bills were issued for the consumption of 9200, 4400, 6600, 9200 and 3600 units respectively and charged Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges in all the bills.   The Exs.A-1 to A-4, A-8, A-11 and A-12 show that these bills were issued for the consumption of 1000, 1000, 600, 2600, 1442, 2200 and 3196 units respectively.   In these bills also the OPs charged Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges.   The very disputed bill dated 7.6.2008 which is marked as Ex.A-13 proves that the billed units are 3712 and Rs.12,797-86 ps. was charged towards fixed demand charges.  It is clear from seeing the Ex.A-1 to A-12 that irrespective of consumption of energy Rs.2,775/- is payable towards fixed demand charges for the load of 75 HP.  There is no whisper in the counter of OPs with regard to charging the fixed demand charges.  The OPs have not given any explanation in their counter as to how or why they have charged more than Rs.2,775/- contrary to the previous bills.   The OPs have not filed any material to substantiate their contention that they can charge Rs.12,797-86 ps. instead of Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges according to their counter.   The OPs filed Booklet i.e., “General Terms and Conditions of supply” issued by OPs department.  This booklet was issued to deal with the cases pertaining to theft of electricity under Clause 10 of the GTCS.  Therefore we hold that this document will not help in any way to the OPs.     In absence of the material on behalf of OPs and in light of Exs.A-1 to A-12, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is entitled to claim on Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges for 75 HP connection.   Charging of units @ 195/- per KVA is not in dispute and that the complainant paid the said charges without any objection.      In our opinion, the OPs wrongly charged Rs.12,797-86 ps. instead of Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges without any basis and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs.    Therefore we hold that the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.10,022-86 ps. which was collected from the complainant.         

 

11. The complainant is seeking direction to OPs to refund his excess amount of Rs.10,022-86 ps. together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., 30.6.2008 till the realization and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for putting him to mental agony and costs of the proceedings.   The claim of 18% p.a. interest in our opinion, is very higher side but 6% p.a. interest is quite reasonable to award on Rs.10,022-86 ps. as this amount is being utilized by the OPs from the date of its receipt.   Hence we hold that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,022-86 ps. together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.6.2008 to till the realization.  However we hold that the OPs are at liberty either to refund the amount to the complainant or to adjust the same to the future bills.  The complainant did not file any material in support of his claim of compensation.  Moreover we have already awarded interest on the amount.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for any separate lumpsum amount towards compensation.    As such this claim is rejected.  No doubt the complainant filed the complaint by engaging Advocate and paying court fee.  Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.   

 

12. In the result, the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,022-86 ps. together with interest @ 6% p.a. thereon from 30.6.2008 to till the payment and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.  Alternatively OPs are directed to adjust the said amounts to the future bills from December, 2008 onwards. 

 

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26th day of November, 2008.           

 

        

 MEMBER                                MEMBER                              PRESIDENT 

    Appendix of evidence

       Witness examined

 

For complainant: Nil                                                 For opposite parties:  Nil

Exhibits marked for Complainant:-   

 

Ex.A-1:        Copy of bill, dt.8.7.2006.

Ex.A-2:        Copy of bill, dt.6.6.2006.

Ex.A-3:        Copy of bill, dt.3.8.2006.

Ex.A-4:        Copy of bill, dt.5.9.2006.

Ex.A-5:        Copy of bill, dt.6.12.2006.

Ex.A-6:        Copy of bill, dt.5.10.2006.

Ex.A-7:        Copy of bill, dt.3.11.2006.

Ex.A-8:        Copy of bill, dt.5.3.2007.

Ex.A-9:        Copy of bill, dt.6.1.2007.

Ex.A-10:      Copy of bill, dt.5.2.2007.

Ex.A-11:      Copy of bill, dt.12.4.2008.

Ex.A-12:      Copy of bill, dt.7.5.2008.

Ex.A-13:      Copy of bill, dt.7.6.2008.

Ex.A-14:      Copy of Representation, dt.20.6.2008.

Ex.A-15:      Courier Service Receipts (4).  

Ex.A-16:      Copy of Reply, dt.27.6.2008.

Ex.A-17:      Copy of payment letter with D.D., dt.30.6.2008.

Ex.A-18:      Copy of bill, dt.8.7.2008.

 

Exhibits marked for OPs:-   

 

     - Nil-

 

By the Forum:

     - Nil-

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri C. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.
2. Sri V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for opposite parties.