BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt.C.Preethi, Lady Member
Wednesday the 11th day of October, 2006
C.C.No.44/2006
Sri. T. Sunki Reddy, S/o. late Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Hindu, Asst. Panchayat Raj Secretary,
Door No.41/106-B, Kothapeta, Kurnool.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Divisional Engineer (Operation), Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh
Ltd., Central Power House, Opp. K.V.R. College, Railway Station Road Kurnool.
…Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri. D.Yella Reddy Advocate, Kurnool for Complainant, Sri D. Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for Opposite Party and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
C.C.NO.44/2006
As per Sri. K.V.H. Prasad, Hon’ble President
1. The case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act seeking direction on the opposite party to reinstall the removed newly fixed meter number 101674, to the complainant house bearing number 41/106B Kothapeta Kurnool, pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered at the acts of the opposite party and costs of the case, alleging that he applied to the opposite party on 06.02.2006 for a new meter connection as a required it consequent to remodeling of his house into three portions, paying necessary fees of Rs.2,453/- by D.D.No.148858 dated:06.02.2006 of Bank of Baroda infavour of the Divisional Engineer A.P.C.P.D.C.L. and after its encashment on 11.02.2006, the opposite party allotting and fixing a new meter bearing No.101674 in the last week of February 2006, and as no Electricity was consumed through new meter a minimum consumption bill for Rs.130/- was issued vide a demand bill dated 15.04.2006 and the said demand was paid vide receipt number 0284383 dated:15.04.2006 and inspite of that the opposite party disconnecting the supply and taking way the new meter on 17.04.2006 removing it without any intimation and the said conduct of opposite party as deficiency of service causing mental agony to the complainant besides to suffering.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant, the opposite party has caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case denying its any of liability, filing a written version alleging, falsity in complainant house being given any new meter service connection and its alleged removal and the issual of minimum demand charges and its payment as one obtained by the complainant in collusion with the call center and claim of compensation at Rs.10,000/- is fanciful and the case of the complainant is in real suppression of fact of the Assistant Engineer not recommending the service connection finding multiple connection and the falsity in alleged installed meter as it was already allotted to one other person (Md.Yunus) and the real issual of demand bill and its collection does not entitle the installation of a new meter especially even it does not relates to complainants house and the case of the complainant as vexatious and liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has relied upon documentary record in Ex.A1 and A2 and its Sworn Affidavit in reiteration of its case besides to the replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party side has taken reliance on Ex.B1 and B2 besides to replies to the interrogatories exchanged with the other side.
4. Hence the point for consideration is whether any deficiency of service on the party of the opposite party is made out by complainant making the opposite party liable to the claim of the complainant.
5. While the Ex.A1 is the demand bill dated:15.04.2006 for service connection number 01401 101674 standing in the name of the complainant to the house bearing number 41/106B for charging Rs.100/- for minimum consumption for the period 2/06 to 4/06 giving a total demand for Rs.130/- requiring its payment by 28.04.2006, the Ex.A2 envisages its payment through E-seva on the same day.
6. The Ex.B1 is the application of the complainant with a self declaration and other enclosures such an Xerox of driving license house tax receipt and other particulars will part A and B and form WR-1 seeking supply of low tension electricity to the house in door number 41/106B of Kothapeta which is shown as existing service connections bearing number 1776910, 92767. The ExB2 is the new service returns furnished by service center to the opposite party, for the processed applications for the period 12,206 to 14,206, for their verification by the opposite party with reference to the material there in visiting the said premises and for furnishing their verification observations and recommendations for giving connections are refusal in the last six columns of the said Ex.B2 to service center for further actions. The entries of said Ex.B2 a serial number eleven pertaining to the complainant bears the endorsement of Assistant Engineer distribution power house section kurnool as to that multiple service collections and so its return to cell amounting to not recommending the said connection. But however as a demand bill in Ex.A1 was issued as if installation of meter was given for power consumption and its collection was admittedly made and the Ex.A2, the opposite party cannot escape its responsibility and there by his liability throwing the blame on call centers especially when the call center is not an independent organization but one working under it being employed for lending its service to the opposite party in certain aspects and when the liability for the deficient acts of its subordinates of the servants always lies with they master who services they are availing as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Luknow Development Authority Versus M.K.Gupta reported A.I.R1994 SC-787 and in Ghajiabad Development Authority Verses Balbeer Singh reported in 2003 C.T.J.605 equal to 2004
(8 C.L.D861) SC holds the liability of officer of public authority for payment of compensation first by it for capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non exercise of power and its recovery from those found responsible for such an unpardonable behavior.
7. The complainant except placing the Ex.A1 and A2 did not place any such cogent material as to installation of meter and thereby providing electricity supply under it by examining those who has given such electricity supply installing said meter, inspite of the denial of the truth therein and the record Ex.A1 and A2 as one managed by the complainant.
8. As endorsement of Assistant Engineer in Ex.B2 to serial number eleven pertaining to complainant finds the multiple services and return to cell the installation of meter cannot be presumed for want of record as to the installation of meter and supply of electricity power.
9. Hence the complaint cannot seek reinstallation of the meter which appears to have been not installed at all for want of its recommendations by said Assistant Engineer. Therefore in the circumstances of giving a demanding bill Vide Ex.A1 and its collection under Ex.A2 amounts to a deficiency of service of the kind of wrong billing on the part of the opposite party and thereby the opposite party liability for said deficiency of service and for the insured mental agony of the complainant and awarding compensation for said deficiency of service occurred at the negligent conduct of the opposite party at the matter and refund of the illegally connected amount under Ex.A1, A2 and the D.D. amount of Rs.2,425/- the receipt of which is evidenced his second page of Ex.B1 appears to meet the ends of justice.
10. Consequently the complaint is partially allowed accordingly directing the opposite party to refund the bill amount of Rs.130/- evidenced under Ex.A1 and A2, and D.D. amount of Rs.2,425/- evidenced in second page of Ex.B1 along with amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant, and Rs.1000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of the receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall be liable to pay the award amount with 9% interest from the date of said default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 11th day of October, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the Complainant:
Ex.A1 Original Demand Electricity bill issued by opposite party dt:15.04.2006.
Ex.A2 Receipt issued by the E-seva bill No:0284383 for the payment of the Electricity bill for Rs.130/- dt:15.04.2006.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Application of complainant for supply of Electricity at low tension.
Ex.B2 New service return list furnished by Service Center to the
opposite Party.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. Sri. D. Yella Reddy, Advocate Kurnool.
2. Sri. D. Srinivasulu, Advocate Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
