BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM:KURNOOL

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

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

Friday the 12^th day of July, 2002

CD.No.27/2002

M.Ashok Kumar,

S/o Late M.Vasudevaih,

H.No.40/30C-18,

Medum Compound,

Kurnool District.               . . . Complainant represented by her

                                               Counsel Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate

-Vs-

The Central Power Distribution Company of

Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by its Superintending Engineer,

Bellary Road

Kurnool.                                   . . . Opposite party represented by their

      counsel Sri.D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate.

O R D E R

(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member)

CC.27/2002

1.       This is a complaint petition filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act by the complainant seeking to direct the opposite party to change the category No.II to category No.I to the consumer No.54539 pertained to H.No.40/30-18-3, Medum Compound, Kurnool and also to direct the opposite party to adjust the excess amount already paid towards the future consumption charges, grant compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs etc.

2.       The case of the complainant as per the averments of the complaint stated in brief is as follows.  The complainant is the owner of the residential house bearing No.40/30-18-3 at Medum Compound, Kurnool Town, to which the opposite party provided electricity supply only under residential  category (Category-I) to the said house and its Consumer No.54539.  It is also alleged that said building for which the electricity was supplied being used for residential purpose only and not used for commercial purpose.  As such the opposite party gave connection under the residential category No.I. While so the complainant received electricity bills for the months during the 2^nd week of December to the surprise of the complainant that bill was assessed under commercial category (Category-II).  The opposite party did not give any notice at any time giving opportunity to the complainant about the proposal of change of category.  The tenant living in the said house is using the premises only for residential purpose.  No commercial purpose is carried in the said house.  Therefore changing the category from residential category to commercial category is illegal and not based on any material much less without giving any notice or opportunity to the complainant, which amount to resorting to unfair trade3 practices and also deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complainant submits that the said action of the opposite party in changing the category No.I to Category No.II without any basis and without any enquiry being conducted is illegal and liable to be declared as illegal and invalid.  The complainant was compelled to pay the excess amount under the Category No.II notice.  For which the complainant is entitled to refund but he prays that the excess amount collected may be adjusted to the future bills.  Grievance of the complainant is that there is a vast difference in the bills.  For category No.I (Residential Category) the consumer has to pay Rs.1.35 Paise per unit.  For category No.II (Commercial Category) the consumer has to pay Rs.3.40 Paise per unit.  But the opposite party under the quice of conversion imposed tariff at Rs.3.40 Ps.  Thereby it resulted in mental agony worry and inconvenience at the hands of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.       The complaint is opposed by the opposite party by filing an objection statement denying the material allegations of the complaint.  The contest of the opposite party as seen from the same is as that the complainant’s relationship with one Vasudevaiah the original owner of the consumer is to be strictly proved by the complainant.  The electricity supplied to the consumer is used for commercial purpose.  It is stated that the premises of the building of the said Vasudevaiah was inspected and found that meter to various rooms were placed at a single point, which is used as reception.  The rooms were also inspected and each room was furnished with similar furniture and costs supplied and maintained by the consumer.  The building had all the trappings of a lodging, under the guise of rooms the consumer has been renting the room on daily, monthly basis, which is nothing but a commercial activity.  Hence the transfer of category as alleged.  The consumer was informed at the time of inspection about the change of category and the bill in dispute was issued.  The opposite party further states that  under conditions No.35 of supply the opposite party has got right to reclassify the category of consumption any time and revise the bill, even retrospectively.  If the contentions of the consumer is to be accepted then the consumer ought not have separated the meters for single premises and as per the condition they have to be amalgamated into a single service.  The issues raised in the case involved complicated questions.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the electricity laws as amended.  Thus the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.       The complainant has filed the relevant documents as mentioned in the complaint such as bill for the electricity charges for the month of November, 2001 to December, 2001 dated 07.12.2001 for consumer No.54539 (Original/Xerox), bill dated 07.10.2001 for the months September – October, 2001 for consumer No.54539 assessed under the category No.I (Original), letter written by the complainant dated 21.12.2001 (Office copy) and postal acknowledgement card etc.

5.       The opposite party filed six positive photographs in support of his contest.  It is also to be noted that the complainant has filed his affidavit stated in detail as rejoinder to the objection statement along with family members certificate issued by the MRO concerned, while reiterating the complainant’s claim as made in the complaint.  The opposite party also filed affidavit reiterating his objection statement allegations seeking to dismiss the complaint that is all the material made available on record.

6.       It is also pertinent to note that the learned counsels appearing for both sides requested for disposal of the case as the point involved is very simple.  As such we proposed to dispose of the case in the light of the material made available on record. 

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

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