Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 30th day of November, 2004
C.D.No.37/2003
1. M.Anjaneyulu,
S/o Late Madhava Swamy,
2. Lakshmi Reddy,
S/o S.Hanumantha Reddy,
3. Ramachandra Reddy,
S/o S.Hanumantha Reddy,
4. S.Hanumantha Reddy,
S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy,
5. B. maddaiah,
S/o Late Hanumanthu,
6. V.Sekhar,
S/o Peddaiah
7. K.Rami Reddy,
S/o Hanumantha Reddy,
8. Kotlaiah,
S/o Venkataiah
9. K.Manikya Reddy,
S/o Gali Reddy,
10. Parthasaratha Reddy
S/o Late Shiva Reddy,
11. Dubbhanna @ M.Dubba Ramuldu,
S/o Late Pedda Ramudu,
12. T.Ramanna,
S/o Ramaiah ,
13. Chinna Madanna,
S/o Chinna Ranganna,
14. K.Venkata Ramudu,
S/o Giddanna
All re residents of Mallepalli Village,
Veldurthi Mandal,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainants represented by their counsel
Sri.M.R.Krishna
-Vs-
The Divisional Electrical Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company Limited,
Opp. K.V.R. College,
Kurnool . . .opposite party represented by their
Counsel Sri.D.Srinivasaulu
.
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under sections 10 and 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party for is usual of revival by monthly demand notice for consumption as per the existing tariff rate shown in the demand notice of 02/2002, refund/adjustment in future bills of the excess amount collected from 2/2002 to 1/2003, to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for suffered mental agony and costs of the case along with other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the joint complainant’s case are that the complainants 14 in numbers as residents of Mallepalli Village of Veldurthy Mandal of Kurnool District and consumers of the electricity supplied by the opposite party and the contacted load of each complainant was 200 watts and hence their consumption of electricity was accordingly. While such is so without any due demand notice the opposite party raised the tariff rate from Rs.1.45 Ps to Rs.2.80Ps and thereby there was abnormal increase in the consumption bills. The Assistant Engineer, Veldurthy and the Additional Divisional Engineer, Dhone did not respond to the several representations made by the complainants. The opposite party responded to the joint representation dated 16-11-2002 of the complainants, assuring the letter the steps for the reduction of bill amount on demand notices on thorough verification. But nothing was acted upon. As the complainants are getting excessive bills the inaction of the opposite party in this regard amounts to deficiency of service and the subordinates of the opposite party are threatening the complainants, the later are put to mental agony.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainants the opposite party contested case through its counsel filing written version denying of any deficiency of service and questioning the bonafidies of the complainants case and the cause of action and the entitleness of the complainants for the reliefs sought.
4. The written version of the opposite party besides denying the truth and bonafidies of the complainants case and its maintainability and of any alleged deficiencies, allege the excess billing as misconceived as the contractual load was not 200 watts, but it was 250 watts and minimum chargeable tariff was not Rs.1.48 Ps. Per unit, but Rs.2.80 Ps per unit. The representations of the complainant were duly considered making through inspections of the services of the complainants and finding them as above 240 watts and their coverage under tariff structure of 200 to 300 watts for which the minimum charge for month was Rs.50/- and the said chargeable tariff was necessitated on due verification of the connected load of the complainants. It denies the alleged threatening of the subordinates of the opposite party to the complainants and question the maintainability of joint complaint for want of same interest of the complainants and the dispute as to tariff does not fall within the purview of C.P. act jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. As the Act of the opposite party in charging revival tariff was in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. There is no deficiency of service and the claim of the complainants in spite of their enlightments as to their position and facts as to the revival tariff in minimum billing the case of the complainant is vexatious and so seeks the dismissal of the complainants case with the exemplary costs.
5. In substantiation of the complainants case they have relied upon the documentary record Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 besides to their self sworn affidavits in substantiation of the complaint averments and the opposite party’s side has relied upon the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and its sworn affidavits in support of his contention.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainants have made out their case and its cause of action of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party so as to entitle themselves to the reliefs sought.
- The Ex.A1 is the bunch of the 14 demand bills dated 01-10-2003 of the complainants service connection for the monthly consumption of the November and December. The said bills envisages their connected load as 260, 320, 360, 415, 255, 260, 265, 280, 300, 315, 560, 280, 260 and 260 and an uniform levy of energy charged at Rs.100/-. While the Ex.B1 bunch of 14 inspections notes pertaining to the complainants service connections inspection 30-04-2003, 08-05-2003 envisage their connected load as envisaged in Ex.A1 demand bills of consumption. The Ex.A2 demand bill of consumption of the complainant No.1 for December, 2000 to January, 2001 envisage the contacted load as 200 watts is being of early period and not of the year 2003, it does not appear to be having any relevancy for the appreciation for want of its exhibition of the present state of affairs. As the demand made in Ex.B1 is being was said to have been made on thorough inspections made under Ex.B1 inspection notes. Ex.a2 being of a past period shall not have any super seeded effect to doubt any bonafidies of Ex.B1 inspection notes which are envisages the recent position of connected load availed by the complainants in the recent period, especially when there is no material record of the demand bills of the immediately preceding period to the Ex.B1 showing any connected load as the complainants allege. When there is no cogent material that the contacted load of the complainant’s service connection as 200 watts only and the minimum charges were each of them paying earlier to Ex.A1 demand bills as they alleged, any amount of reiteration of them in ExA3 and Ex.A4 are of no avail to the complainants. The material in Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 more envisages he contentions of the opposite party rather than any of the complainants’ allegations or their innocence at the matters. There being no material from the complainants side questioning the tariff rate and the minimum charges i.e., leviable for the above 200 watts connected load the demand made in Ex.A1 remains to be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the supply and hence the said levying done neither amounts to any excess billing nor to any deficiency of service to the complainants on the part of the opposite party.
8. Hence, the result of the above discussion, there being no bonafidies in the alleged cause of action and the alleged deficiency of service and consequently there being no merit and force in the complainants case it is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation, corrected by us, and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30th day of November, 2004.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite party:- Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bunch of 14 bills dated 01-01-2003 for the months of November and December.
Ex.A2 Bill of 01-02-2001 for the month of 12/2000 and 1/2001 issued by CPDC of A.P. Limited Dhone.
Ex.A3 Representation letter date d 16-11-2002 given by Mallepalli Villagers to Divisional Electrical Engineer, Kurnool
Ex.A4 Office copy of Legal Notice dated 01-05-2003 issued to opposite party by the complainant’s counsel.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 Bunch of 14 inspection notes of 14 complainants in Form LT.
Ex.B2 Minutes of the review meeting conducted by the Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Kurnool.
Ex.B3 Particulars of Mallepalli Village as per ERO Records.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
