BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday the 27th day of March, 2015
C.C.No.30/2013
Between:
V.Bhaskar Rao,
S/o V.Venkata Swamy,
Proprietor of M/s Suvarna Lakshmi Slab,
Polishing Industry, D.No.18-54.
Dhone Road, Betamcherla-518 599,
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
The Divisional Engineer (Operations),
APCPDC Limited,
D.No.15-22, Near New Bus Stand,
Dhone-518 595,
Kurnool District. …OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.V.Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)
C.C. No.30/2013
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party not to collect the back billing provisional assessment amount of Rs.1,48,830/- as the opposite party did not pass the reassessment order and not to disconnect the power supply to the complainant’s Industry at Bethamcherla having power supply connection S.C.No.0306002325, Category LT3(A)-Industrial Normal;
- To refund the Rs.15,000/- which was collected towards part of back billing amount;
- To award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and costs of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is running a Slab Polishing Industry at Bethamcherla, Kurnool District under the name and style M/Suvarna Lakshmi Slab Polishing Industry for earning his livelihood. The opposite party provided electricity connection (Three Phase) S.C.No.036002325, Category LT3 (A) to his Industry. On 07.04.2012 the employee working under the opposite party inspected the Industry and found that he meter is not recording the energy consumption correctly in one phase due to defect in the meter and gave report to A.D.E., about the defect in the meter. The said A.D.E., had provisionally assessed the back billing at Rs.1,48,830/- and served assessment notice dated 10.04.2012 to the complainant. The said assessment of back billing is against the terms and conditions of supply of electricity, he did not taken in to consideration the connected load is 34.85np and the industry was running 3 to 4 hours per day due to power cut and only 4 days in a week due to labour shortage. On 23.04.2012 the complainant sent a requisition to opposite party and requested for reassessment, but opposite party did not respond and threatened the complainant to disconnect the power supply if the back billing amount is not paid. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 26.02.2013 and Rs.5,000/- on 30.03.2013. Though the complainant requested for reassessment the opposite party did not take steps for the same. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
3. Written version filed on behalf of opposite party stating that the complaint is unjust and neither maintainable in law or on facts. It is admitted that the complainant availed three phase connection with S.C.No.0306002325 for his industry. On 07.04.2012 the opposite party department authorities inspected the said unit and observed that the meter is not functioning correctly and consumption of energy is not recording in one phase. Accordingly the opposite party served provisional assessment notice for the loss sustained by the company for not recording in one phase at Rs.1,48,830/- and the said notice was served on the complainant and informed that for continuance of supply, he has to pay Rs.74,415/- being 50% of the assessed amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. Sworn affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party. No document is marked.
5. Both side filed Written Arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Points i and ii: Admittedly the complainant is running the Slab Polishing Industry at Bethamcherla, Kurnool District under the name and Style of “Suvarna Lakshmi Slab Polishing and Mineral Small Scale Industry”. The photo copy of permanent Registration Certificate dated 30.03.1990 is marked as Ex.A1. The opposite party provided electricity connection to the complainant said industry with S.C.No.0306002325 Category LT3 (A). It is the case of the complainant that the employee working under the opposite party inspected the said industry on 07.04.2012 and found that the meter is not recording the energy consumption in one phase correctly due to defect in the meter and he informed the same to A.D.E. A.D.E., issued notice dated 10.04.2012 for back billing assessment for a tune of Rs.1,48,830/- period from 11.04.2012 to 11.01.2012. The assessment notice is marked as Ex.A2. The complainant sent a requisition letter dated 2304.2012 and requested the opposite party for reassessment, but the opposite did not respond and threatened to pay the amount. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 26.02.2013 and Rs.5,000/- on 30.03.2013 the receipts are marked as Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the electricity bill dated 07.04.2012. It is a case of opposite party that the plea of reassessment is not maintainable the assessment is based on consumption in one phase. The billing is for ascertainable period and an ascertainable consumption. The billing can be for more than 6 months the assessment is valid and proper. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the complainant’s industry is having power connection with contracted load of 74.00 HP, but the connected load is 34.85 HP only as per Ex.A6. This fact is not considered by the A.D.E., while assessing the back billing. The assessment period for back billing from 11.04.2011 to 11.01.2012 without any report relating to defect in meter and when the defect in meter had crept-in. So the assessment period taken by A.D.E., is without any basis. To support of his version he cited a decision reported in III (2002) CPJ Page 278 (NC) Neelkamal Industries -Vs- M.P. Electricity Board. The facts of cited case is applicable to present case on hand where in the Honourable National Commission held that the respondent is directed to proceed in accordance with the provision of section 26 (6) of Electricity Act, 1910.
8. There is no dispute with regard to obtain the power supply three phase connection from opposite party to run his Slab Polishing Industry at Bethamcherla, Kurnool District. On 07.04.2012 an employee of opposite party inspected the said unit. Basing on the said inspection report the A.D.E., had provisionally assessed the back billing and arrived at Rs.1,48,830/- and said notice served to complainant under Ex.A2 dated 10.04.2012. But the opposite party did not produce the report of the employee, who inspected the said industry without any report relating to defect in meter how can the assessment had taken for a period for back billing from 11.04.2011 to 11.01.2012. As per section 26 of Electricity Act, 1910 the consumer shall be billed for the period of meter revised defective based on the estimated energy consumption by taking the consumption pattern of the consumer for the six months prior to and six month after the period, during which meter remained defective. It is not the case of opposite party that there is consumption of electricity in excess of sanctioned load, under Section 126 of Electricity Act. The opposite party issued consumption back billing for period of 11.04.2011 to 11.01.2012 for the payment of Rs.1,48,830/- abnormal and excessive and without any basis. We consider all the material available on record and in the light of above decision we found that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and caused mental agony to the complainant. Basing on the facts and circumstance we direct the opposite party to withdraw/cancel the bill dated 10.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,48,830/- and issued revised correct bill to be based an estimated energy consumption by taking consumption pattern to consumer for six months prior of six months after during which the meter remained defective and further direct the opposite party that the amount of Rs.15,000/- has already paid to opposite party, that amount will be adjusted to the revised bill and directed the opposite party not to disconnect the power supply to the industry of complainant. The opposite party is liable to pay Rs.3,000/- towards mental agony.
9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to cancel the electricity bill dated 10.04.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,48,830/- and issued revised correct bill to the complainant and the amount of Rs.15,000/- already paid to the opposite party that amount will be adjusted in revised bill and directed the opposite party not to disconnect the power supply S.C.No.0306002325 to the said Industry of complainant and further direct to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of the case. Time for compliance is one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27th day of March, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY 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 Photo copy of Certificate for permanent Registration dated
30.03.1990.
Ex.A2 Assessment Notice for Short Billing Meter found defective dated 10.04.2012.
Ex.A3 Office copy of Requisition Letter dated 23.04.2012.
Ex.A4 Receipt for Rs.10,000/- dated 26.02.2013
Ex.A5 Receipt for Rs.5,000/- dated 30.03.2013
Ex.A6 Electricity Bill
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
