BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD

F.A.No. 72 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.251 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE

Between:

Moocherla Subba Rao S/o Narasimham
Age 50 years, occ: Social Worker
R/o Chirala, Prakasham Dist.

                                                       A N D

1.            2.           

Counsel for the Appellant                    

Counsel for the Respondents

QUORUM:  SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER  

AND

SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY  

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

1.         

2.     

3.    

4.     

5.    

6.    

1)               Whether the appellant is entitled to the compensation and costs?

2)               To what relief?

7.               

“At the time of inspection it is found that the party utilizing domestic supply to non-domestic purpose of morning tiffin at his house veranda. 

8.    

“I have provisionally estimated the value of the energy misused by you at Rs.1893/- as per the details the annexure enclosed. 

9.      

In Punjab State Electricity Board and Anr Vs.

The notice dated 2nd July, 2002 (Ext.C/5) was issued on the basis of the inspection report. From the record before us it will be a serious question to be specifically answered by the Competent Forum, as to whether the premises in question are two distinct and different premises or it is one in the same (i.e. only property No. 136 or 136 and 136-A). If these are two independent premises owned by two different persons who are consumers of the Board in their own capacity and there is no intention on their part to use these connections collectively and have not violated their sanctioned load, the consequences in law will be different. But, if there is intention to use both connections and avoid higher tariff, the consequences will be entirely different in that case. The inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific protest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the reports on record, it bears two signatures of the consumer/consumer's representatives, one with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report.

Except submitting the letter, the appellant had not filed any positive evidence to show that the inspection conducted by the respondent no.2 of the service connection pertaining to the appellant was arbitrary and unjust.    

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                     KMK*