BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri I.Siva Samba Murthy, B.L., President

And

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Thursday the 11^th day of July, 2002

CD.No.60/2002

P.Nagabhushanam,

Attender,

S/o P.Ramiah,

West Section R and B, B-Camp,

Kurnool District.                       . . . Complainant represented by her

                                                      Counsel Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate

-Vs-

1. The Branch Manager,

    The peerless General Finance and Investments Company Limited,

    Dwaraka Towers 7 Road Junction,

    Cuddapah.                           . . . Opposite party No.1 represented by their

      counsel Sri.K.Govindu, Advocate.

2. The Managing Director,

    The peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited,

    Peerless Bhavan, 3, Esplande East,

    Culcatta-700 069.                . . . Opposite party

.

O R D E R

1.       The complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the maturity value in a sum ofRs.17,130/- due on Endowment Certificate table-10 after its maturity with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs etc.

2.       The case of the complainant is that he took 10 years Endowment Certificate table -10 in the year 1991 for Rs.14,000/- from the opposite party No.1 bearing certificate No.E451723990/912.  Under the scheme conditions the complainant is entitled recover the maturity sum of Rs.17,130/- from the opposite party on or after the maturity dated i.e., 28.04.2001.  it is the further claim of the complainant that he made claim along with the original certificate policy duly discharged to the opposite party  after the maturity date demanding the payment of maturity sum of Rs.17,130/-.  But the opposite party failed to repay the maturity amount even after the lapse of 10 months, branded amounts deficiency of service.  Hence the complaint.

3.       The opposite party having received notice got entered appearance through their advocate Sri.K.Govindu by filing vakalat and took time for filing written statement on behalf of the opposite party No.1.  While the opposite party No.2 called absent after serving the notice in the first instance.

4.       It is to be seen that the opposite party did not filed their written statement though several chances were given even though the complainant filed his affidavit.  Another opportunity was afforded the opposite party failed to file the written statement, matter to be proceeded against unrepresented.  The complainant submitted his affidavit.  His counsel submitted arguments.  As the first opposite party did not file the objection statement we are left with no option except to dispose of the matter on merits in the light of material made available on record.

5.       The complainant has field the relevant documents as mentioned in the complaint.

6.       Therefore, the point that arises for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled to?:-

7.       It may be stated at the outset that the complainant has taken Social Welfare Endowment Scheme Table-10 in the year 1991 for Rs.14,000/- form the opposite party No.1.  The opposite party also issued a certificate in the name of the complainant.  The certificate bearing No.E451723990/912.  As per the scheme conditions after the maturity the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,130/-.  The complainant has paid the subscription amount regularly to the opposite party and that the complainant certificate was matured on 28.04.2001.  After maturity the complainant has submitted all the original certificate of the policy and discharge form to the opposite party No.1. But even though after 10 months elapsed the opposite party did not settle the claim of the complainant.  For which the complainant send several reminders to the opposite party for realization of the amount from the opposite parties.  The opposite party failed to discharge its service rendering them liable to pay with interest.  As regard to the

8.       It may be stated at the outset that according to the complainant that he owns the residential house bearing No.40/30-18-3 in Medum Compound, Kurnool Town to which the opposite party provided the electricity supply which consumer No.54539 for the contact load of 240 watts and the electricity supply is being used for residential purpose only and it was never used for commercial purpose.  The service connection of the complainant was issued only under the residential category namely category-I.  The complainant has been enjoying the same since long time.  But to the surprise and shock the opposite party issued the impugned notice in the month of December stating that the conversion or change from category-I to Category-II is made demanding for payment of higher tariff.  The said transfer and the impugned demand was done by the opposite party arbitrary and unilaterally without making any enquiry or without issuing any notice to the complainant contrary to the principles of natural justice, and does not stand on facts or under law.  As such the complainant seeks relief as prayed for in the complaint.  We have to see the contention made by the opposite party objection to the claim of the complainant is only based on alleged inspection made by the opposite party officials of eh building of the consumer.  It is argued by the counsel for the complainant on behalf of the complainant that the opposite party had resorted taking plea that eh original consumer was one Vasudevaiah.  The premises of the said consumer was inspected by the officials of the opposite party.  This contention of the opposite party cannot fit in the frame work of the defence that the complainant’s relationship with the said Vasudevaiah has got to be strictly proved by the complainant. So it is understandable as to which premises was inspected by the opposite party.  Whether the opposite party inspected the premises of one Vasudevaiah or the complainant as successor to Vasudevaiah.  In view of the family members certificate issued by the MRO concerned it proves beyond any doubt, that the complainant is legal hire of the said Vasudevaiah.  As such the title to the property cannot be disputed in the light of the said material.  It is the claim of the complainant that no notice or not enquiry was conducted providing opportunity to the complainant and the opposite party violated the principles of natural justice in transferring the category-I to category-II high handedly and unilaterally, being one sided to the detriment of the complainant.  it is also argued by the complainant that the meters of other rooms are kept in only one place with the utmost benefit of the opposite party to avoid the tempering form any one of the tenant and watchmen also allotted to the meters place to avoid future problems to the department of opposite party.  Hence there is no malafide intention in arranging the meters in at one place.  As against this opposite party only says that they have informed about the bills, even the affidavit and the objection statement of the opposite party did not state at what time and on what date in whose presence they have inspected the premises of the complainant. As such no information was made before inspecting the premises in dispute in opportunity was provided for re-effecting the transfer of category to the determent of the complainant.  It is the further submission of the complainant’s counsel that in view of the absence of any material to satisfy that the opportunity was provided to the complainant.  It shall be treated that there was no alleged inspection etc., on the part of the opposite party.  It is the in his affidavit that all the meters were kept in one premises at one place is not to use the premises for the commercial activity, but to avoid tempering of the meters, thus were fixed at one place and to avoid the risk from tenants.  The other allegations made in the similar fashion are rather false.  Trying to disprove the said contention of the complainant the opposite party as stated that the photographs filed to show that the premises used for commercial purpose rather using like lodge.  As stated in the objection statement that the premises and its use was having trapping of lodge, but not lodge according to him.  We have carefully perused the photographs and the other material made available on record and find that the photos mentioned certain house in the 1^st floor and 2^nd floor not even as rooms.  This circumstances support the claim of the complainant that for the purpose of convenient letting out to residential purposes the different portions was let out to the different individuals as the owner having all the portions.  As such and they are inspected at the time of giving several meters and connections after having been fully satisfied by the opposite party officials and after satisfaction conclusion only they have given meters and by believing that they are using residential purpose various meters were given.  It is also seen the submissions made by the complainant’s counsel that various employees and officials of the opposite party were inspecting and visiting periodically for noting the meter consumption and also maintaining the meters they never objected at any point of time regarding the same, but curiously to shock of the complainant, the opposite party has resorted to change of the category high handedly and arbitrarily without providing any opportunity to the complainant which is very much illegal and not binding on the complainant.  We have heard the both counsels who strenuously submitted their relative contentions.  It is to be further seen that there is no board placed at the premises if really used as lodge disclosing as lodge.  If it is a lodge that should be registered under the labour act and shops act.  There is no material placed about their action in changing the category-I to category-II.  But it is made as a ruse to gain more tariffs wrongly by causing wrongly loss to the complainant.  We on a careful consideration of contentions of the both parties, the documents and affidavits filed by both sides and also other material find that there is a considerable force in the submission of the complainant’s counsel while we fail to find any merits in the contentions of the opposite party’s learned standing counsel who in his vain bid tried to justify the action of the opposite party without placing any material in support thereof.  Hence his objection cannot be considered as tenable.  As such we find the considerable force in the claim of the complainant which is well founded, bonafide and sustainable.  But as regard to the claim for compensation for the mental agony etc., there is no independent material placed as such we find that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation as no substantial loss is proved besides directing the both parties to bear their own respective costs while granting the main relief as prayed for.  Thus the point is found accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.

9.       In the result, in view of our discussion made above this complaint petition is allowed in part directing the opposite party to change the category No.II into category No.I for consumer no.54539 pertaining to H.No.40/30-18-3, Medum Compound, Kurnool Town and also to adjust the excess amount collected from the complainant by the opposite party towards the future consumption charges and bills.  Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

Dictation to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 12^th day of July, 2002.

MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT