BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

              Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Tuesday, the 5^th day of November, 2013

CC. No. 09 of 2013

Between:

Asmathunnisa Begum W/o Shaik Nagavalli,

Age: 42 years, Occ: house hold & agrl.,

R/o NGO’s Colony, Narsapur (M),

Medak District.                                                                        ……Complainant

                   And

1. The Divisional Engineer,

APCPDCL, Medak Divisional at Medak.

2. The Additional Divisional Engineer,

APCPDCL, Narsapur, Medak District.

3. Assistant Engineer,

     APCPDCL, Narsapur, District Medak.

                                                                                ……Opposite parties

              This case came up for final hearing before us on 29.10.2013 in the presence of Sri Ch. Nagender, Advocate for complainant and Sri Ananth Rao Kulkarni, Advocate for opposite parties, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties not to collect amount under commercial category for the service connection no. 75 and to return the excess amount paid by the complainant and towards Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties and also pass and order as deemed fit and proper by the Forum.

 Brief averments of the case:

         The complainant happens to be an agriculturist at Madapur, Narsapur (M) of Medak District, cultivating different crops including mango trees. He has an electricity service connection bearing S.C. No. 75 for the purpose of pumping bore well water which is purely used for the agricultural activities only. But the opposite parties issued electricity bills under commercial category instead of agricultural category, as such collected excess amount. The complainant has another service connection no. 218 for domestic purpose, and both the bills are projected in a single bill. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble  High Court of A.P. reported in 2003 ALT-2-169 and 2002-ALD-6-601, “Mohd Zaiul Hussain vs. APSEB and ors.”, in which it was held that the agriculturist to be charged under agricultural category only.

2.            All the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 combinedly filed their written version in which they admitted that the complainant has a domestic service connection no, 218 and an agriculture service connection no. 75, but the service no. 75 was released under category-V of sub category 16 which is related to horticulture and nursery for which tariff rates are different under the category per unit charge is Rs. 2.12. Accordingly for monthly comsumption of 625 units average per month, it comes to Rs. 1325/- per month. They also made emphasis on the point of service no, 75 was being used for horticulture and nursery purpose which does not come under free category of agriculture. They also produced statement showing the pending bills to the tune of Rs. 37,615/- for the period from 2009 to April 2013. The opposite parties submit that they have given ample opportunity and service inspite on non-payment of energy and the complainant did not pay any amount from the beginning, due to which APCPDCL has sustained heavy loss. Therefore, the opposite partied have vehemently submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed to dismiss this false case with exemplary costs.

3.          Both the parties adduced documentary evidence and exhibits A1 and A2 marked for the complainant similarly exhibits B1 to B4 were marked for the opposite parties only. The complainant filed written arguments and both the counsels advanced oral arguments.

4.          Now the point for consideration is, Whether the opposite parties caused any deficiency in service or not? If so, to What relief?

 Point:

5.             There is no dispute that the complainant is the owner and in cultivating the land situated at Madhapur (V), Narsapur (M), Medak District. There is no dispute that he is having the agricultural electricity connection vide service no. 75. The dispute is solely regarding the issue of electricity bills under commercial category instead of agricultural category.

6.                 The opposite parties have filed consumption, billing, collection and arrears particulars for the period from June/2009 to March/2013 vide Ex. B2 with regard to the complainant’s agricultural electricity service connection no. 75. When the complainant noticed that his service consumption was categorized has commercial instead of agricultural, he submitted an application protesting the same vide Ex. A2 on 19.12.2010. Ex. B1 is demand bill-cum-notice from the APCPDCL towards the arrears for an amount of Rs. 37,615/- subsequent to the period under Ex. B2. The complainant also got another electric connection no. 218 for his domestic purposes. The APCPDCL has issued instructions to its official concerned to monitor actual use of the domestic service identified with that of agriculture services by the consumers. Ex. B3 is a copy of the memo in this regard. Under the memo vide Ex. B4 the department issued instructions to adopt a methodology in arriving at the assessment of units for the farmers of the category other than free power services. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that though the complainant has been raising mango plants in his land, it cannot be treated has commercial use of the power supply because it is his will and pleasure to raise any type of crops in his agricultural land and that it cannot be made a base to convert agricultural category to commercial category to substantiate his contention he has relied on the decision in “Mohammed Ziaul Hussain vs APSEB and Ors”, 2002 (6) ALD 601. This is almost a similar case wherein the nursery of the consumer was shown as category-II-commercial by converting it from category-V agricultural in the billing. While dealing with the matter our Hon’ble High Court held that when the agricultural connection being used for growing the plants, the electricity board is no way concerned as to whether the plants are being sold or otherwise used. It was further held that it was within the produce of the consumer to deal with the produce of the plants and as such categorization of his service connection in respect of ‘Plants Land’ as category-II-commercial has no basis and as such the board was directed to categorise his service connection has category-V agricultural and to issue revised bill in the same and adjust the amounts which were already paid by him and refund the excess amount paid in view of the billing under category-II. This decision is perfectly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Therefore we hold that the APCPDCL has to treat the use of electricity by the complainant under agricultural category and not commercial category. In respect of service connection no. 75 the matter of wrong categorization of the electric supply in the billing certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

7.           The point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to treat the service connection no. 75 of the complainant under agricultural category and refund the excess amount paid, if any, by him under commercial category, after adjusting towards arrears; and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Time to compliance is one month, from the date of receipt of  copy of this order.

        Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the 5^th day of November, 2013.

         Sd/-                                         Sd/-                               Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                    LADY MEMBER             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

      Sd/-                                          Sd/-                                Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                      LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT

Copy to

1. The Complainant
2. The Opp.parties
3. Spare copy