This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 26-11-2008 in the presence of Sri.V.Rama Rao, Advocate for Complainant, and in the presence of Sri. G.Harender Reddy, Advocate for the opposite parties ; upon 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) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the mother of the complainant is having electricity connection bearing No.6821 to her house No.13-3-192 at Ashok Nagar Colony, Bhadrachalam. The mother of the complainant by name J.Saraswathamma died in the year 2002. For all practical purposes the complainant is the owner of the said house and has been paying the bills. That the complainant is also having another three electricity connection bearing No.9265, 1125 and 4660 to her house. The connection 6821 and 9265 are category –I and where as 1125 and 4660 are commercial/category –II. All the connections stood in the name of the mother of the complainant. The opposite parties issued a bill dated 6-3-06 demanding a sum of Rs.12,791/- including Rs.230/- towards consumption charges. Earlier bills dated 7-1-2006 there was no such demand. In the bills dated 8-4-2006 and 5-5-2006 such a huge demand was made but the opposite parties did not give the particulars for such an huge amount. The complainant gave a representation to the opposite party No-2 on 10-5-2006 a to why they were demanding such a huge amount but they did not give any reasons.
That the opposite parties are threatening that they would disconnect the service and they are not accepting the undisputed bill amount. Hence this complaint. Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased direct the opposite parties to withdraw the disputed amount claimed in the bills dated 6-3-06, 8-4-06 and 5-5-06 are in any other bills to the extent of Rs.12,561/- Rs.12, 791/-, Rs.13,438/- shown towards arrears and to declare the bill s to that extent as null and void. Not to disconnect the four service connections bearing No.6821, 9265, 1125, and 4660 and pay the damages and compensation of Rs.10,000/- or to any other relief.
3. The complainant filed the following documents and also filed her affidavit.
Ex A1: Electricity bill, dated 7-1-06 Ex A2: Electricity bill, dated 6-3-06 Ex A3: Electricity bill, dated 18-4-06. All these three are pertaining to service connection No.6821 Ex A4: Electricity bill, dated 7-6-06, 5-5-06 pertaining service connection No.9265, dated 7-6-06, 5-5-06 pertaining service connection No.4660, dated 7-6-06 and 5-5-06 pertaining to service connection No.1125 total No.6 Ex A5: Electricity bill, dated 5-5-06, pertaining service connection No.6821 Ex A6: A letter issued by the complainant to Divisional Engineer, Bhadrachalam. Ex A7: Service dis- connection receipts for the service connection No.6821 ex A8: A letter issued by the V.V.Subbaraju to the AE, Operation Bhadrachalam.
4. Opposite parties filed the following counter:
It is submitted that the SC. No.6821 released on the name of J.Saraswathamma to the H.No:13-3-192. The complainant is not registered consumer to the opposite parties. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant did not produce any legal document or application for changing of name against the service and other services bearing No. 9265, 1128 and 4660. As such the present complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
That the service bearing No.6821/Cat.I was inspected by the Asst.Divisional.Engineer/DPE/II Khammam and found that having recorded consumption is more than the contracted load. The service was utilized for nursing Home from three years. So, back billing was done for Rs.12,511/- by ADE/DPE, Khammam vide letter dated.24-8-1998 and the same was sent to the Asst.Divl.Engineer, Operation, Bhadrachalam to serve the initial assessment notice on the name of J.Saraswathamma on 14-2-2006. Final assessment orders were issued by the DE, Operation, Bhadrachalam vide orders dated 14-2-2006. The back billing amount wad added to the present consumption bill as per the procedure in vogue and CC bills was issued for 3/2006 for Rs.12,791/-+Rs.230/- current month on 6-3-2006, 8-4-2006 and 5-5-2006. The tenant who was present in the said premises V.V.Subba Raju was present at the time of inspection as such the bill issued is not illegal.
That the consumer did not approach the opposite parties and no representation was received for appeal or revision of the provisional assessment notice or final assessment order.
It is submitted that the power supply was disconnected due to non payment of back billing amount and regular CC charges since 3/2006 inspite of repeated request for payment of the amount further.
Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Opposite parties filed the following documents:
Ex B1: Inspection report of Sri.K.Babu Rao, dated 24-8-98 for the service connection No.6821.
6. The point for consideration whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for?
7. It is contention of the complaint that her mother is having electricity connection No.6821 to her house number 13-3-192 at Ashok nagar colony, Badrachalam. The Opposite Parties issued bill dated 6-03-06 demanding a sum of Rs.12,791/- including Rs.230/- towards consumption charges. But earlier in the bills issued by the opposite parties dated 07-01-2006 there was no such demand. In this regard the complainant gave representation to the opposite party No-2 on 10-05-2006 as to why they were demanding such a huge amount. But the Opposite parties did not give any reply and now the Opposite Parties are threatening to disconnect the service connection. Hence the complainant.
8. For this contention of the OP’s is that One Smt.J.Saraswathamma having service connection No.6821 for house no.13-3-192 and the present complainant is not registered consumer and there was no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite parties. Hence the complainant has no cause of action and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the above service bearing No.6821 was inspected by the Assisant.D.E and found that having recorded consumption is more than the contracted load. The service was utilized for nursing home from 3 years. So, back billing was done for Rs.12,511/- by APE/DPE, Khammam vide letter dated. 24-08-1998 and same was sent to the Asst.Divl.Engg., operation Badrachalam to serve the initial assessment notice on the Name of Smt.J.Saraswathamma on 14-02-2006. Final assessment orders were issued by DE, operation, Badrachalam vide orders dated 14-02-2006. Upon this the consumer did not approach the opposite parties and no representation was received for appeal or revision of the provisional assessment notice or final assessment order.
9. The opposite party also relied on the following decisions reported in III (2005) CPJ 189, West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, Mr.D.Karforma & Mrs.S.Majumder, Memebrs WBSEB, Appellant Vs. Prabir Ranjan Dutta, Respondent, S.C.case No.436/A of 2003 decided on 3-1-2005.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Electricity bills inflated – Not rectified on requests – Complaint allowed by Forum – Hence appeal – Contention, complainant not consumer – Complainant’s father was recorded consumer under WBSEB – Complainant is occupier of premises, but not consumer – No privity of contract between him and WBSEB – Order allowing complaint, set aside – Directions give , Result: Appeal allowed.
IV (2003) CPJ 57 (NC) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi , Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member; Mrs.Rajya lakshmi Rao and Mr.B.K.Taimni, members, in between Ashok Kumar , petitioner, Vs. SDO, Haryana Vidyut Parasaran Nigam Ltd., & Another, Respondents, Revision petitioner No.2500 of 2003 – Decided on 2-9-2003.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Electricity – Agriculture land purchased along with tube well run by electricity – Connection still in the name of old land holder – Complainant has no locus standi to apply for reduction of load – Complainant not consumer – Complaint rightly dismissed by State Commission.
10. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, Section 17 - Electricity – Complaint against the order of Provisional Assessment complainant’s premises inspected by the Engineers of Opposite party, APSEB, and passed Provisional Assessment order for alleged pilferage of energy – Superintending Engineer of the opposite party is competent to pass final Assessment Order – Right of appeal is provided to Chief Engineer – Jurisdiction cannot be exercised under Consumer Protection Act – Complaint is not maintainable.
M.Sreeramulu Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents
11. It is the contention of the opposite parties that they have inspected service connection No.6821, which was in the name of the complainant’s mother and found that the service connection was utilized exceeding contract load. The mother of the complainant obtained the above service connection in category under I, but one V.V.Subbaraju, who has occupied that premises was utilizing that connection under category II without any permission from the opposite parties. In this regard, the opposite parties inspected the premises and also issued a notice on the name of Smt.J.Saraswathamma on 14-2-2006. Even after receiving the notice, the mother of the complainant did not file any objections thereupon final assessment orders issued. The consumer did not approach the opposite parties and no representation was received for appeal or revision on the provisional assessment notice or final order.
12. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has to approach before the appropriate authority, but she did not approach. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable. Hence, the complaint is liable for dismissal.
13. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 2nd day of December, 2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Ex A1: Electricity bill, dated 7-1-06
Ex A2: Electricity bill, dated 6-3-06
Ex A3: Electricity bill, dated 18-4-06. All these three are pertaining to service connection No.6821
Ex A4: Electricity bill, dated 7-6-06, 5-5-06 pertaining service connection No.9265, dated 7-6-06, 5-5-06 pertaining service connection No.4660, dated 7-6-06 and 5-5-06 pertaining to service connection No.1125 total No.6
Ex A5: Electricity bill, dated 5-5-06, pertaining service connection No.6821
Ex A6: A letter issued by the complainant to Divisional Engineer, Bhadrachalam.
Ex A7: Service dis-connection receipts for the service connection No.6821
Ex A8: A letter issued by the V.V.Subbaraju to the AE, Operation Bhadrachalam.
Opposite parties
Ex B1: Inspection report of Sri.K.Babu Rao, dated 24-8-98 for the service connection No.6821.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
