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
Wednesday the 9th day of June,2004
C.D.No.147/2003
V.P.Mallikarjuna Gupta,
S/o. Maddaiah,
Managing Partner Rice Milla,
Mamidalapadu (V),R/o. 3/219, Peta,
I Town Area,Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri B.Rama Subba Reddy
-Vs-
The Divisional Engineer,
Central Power Distribution Company
Of A.P Limited, Power House,
Railway Station Road, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri D.Srinivasulu
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer dispute of the complainant is filed under sec.12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to declare the demand of RS. 33, 243/- towards short fall in the bill dt 1.8.2003 as illegal, damages for mental agony and costs of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is the Managing Partner of Sri Varalaxmi Modern Rice Mills at Mamidalapadu, Kurnool District. The complainant is the Consumer of opposite party having, service connection No.97, since 1992 and he was paying bills regularly. But to the dismally of the complainant, he received a bill for the month of July, 2003 for RS.70, 768/-, under the heading short fall as sum of RS.33,234/- is demanded. The opposite party collected RS.10, 000/- under threat and coercion from the complainant in the month of August, 2003 towards short fall. Another bill for the month of August 2003 for RS, 84, 139/- was issued to the complainant by including RS.23,234/- towards short fall. Inspite of several requests the opposite party did not explain any thing about the short fall, being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dt 11.9.2003 requesting the opposite party to furnish details of short fall for RS.33,234/-, and the opposite party did not reply to the said notice. This conduct of the opposite party is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) bill dt 1.8.2003 for the month of July of RS.70,763. 35 (2) bill dt 1.9.2003 for the month of August for RS.84,139/- (3) payment certificate dt 23.8.2003 for payment of RS.10,000/- issued by opposite party and (4) legal notice dt 11.9.2003 issued by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments as evidence.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum of this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through its standing counsel and filed its written version (objection statement) denying the complaint avernments made in the complaint besides questioning its maintainability. It admits the complainant was issued a bill for the month of July, 2003 for RS.70,768/- which included a sum of RS.33,234/- as short fall and another bill for the month of August, 2003 for RS.84,139/- which included a sum of RS.23,234/- as short fall but it denies that RS.10,000/- was collected under threat and coercion from the complainant.
5. The opposite party submits that it was noticed in the audit report that average was not adopted, when one phase of the meter was struck up and thereby, there was short fall in billing to the tune of RS.32,734/-. Hence the short fall was included in the bill. The legal notice sent by the complainant was not received by the opposite party and prays for the dismissal of complaint with costs. The opposite party filed his sworn affidavit in support of his case as evidence besides to document Viz (1) billing pattern for short billing dt 31.5.2002 issued by Senior Audit officer.
- Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out his case alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on the opposite party:-
- The facts which are not dispute are that the complainant owner of the Rice Mill having electricity connection, and was paying bills regularly. The opposite party issued two bill for the months of July and August 2003 for RS.70, 768/- and RS.84,139/- respectively which included arrears of short fall. The opposite party submits that the Audit report noticed that average was not adopted, when one phase of the meter was stuck up, hence the short fall was calculated to RS. 23,234/- and was included in July, 2003 bill. When the complainant paid RS.10, 000/- towards short fall, the same was deducted from the short fall and RS.23, 234/- was included in August, 2003 bill. The opposite party brought on record Ex B.1 dt 31.5.2002 the consumption pattern for short billing of the complainant’s service connection. On page 2 of the Ex B.1 shows columnwise the months during which the meter was struck, units to be billed, units already billed, units short billed and amount was calculated to RS.33,234/-. The said Ex B.1 was prepared on 31.5.2002 by Senior Audit officer for the months from 8/99 to 11/99 to the tune of RS. 33,234/- and the said amount was included in July, 2003 bill of the complainant. From the above material it is empty clear that opposite party demanded for payment of short fall in July 2003 for the months of 9/99 to 11/99 i.e after a period of 3 years and 8 months. The actual legal position is that the opposite party cannot claim any amount of consumption charges for a period exceeding three years. But unfortunately in this case the opposite party has included short fall bill of 3 years 8 months back consumption charges at a time, for the period 8/99 to 11/99. Our State Commission in 1998 (1) CPR Page 248 held that, “ recovery of arrears of electricity consumption charges for more than three years is barred by limitation”.
8. The National Commission in Y.N.Gupta Vs D.E.S 1991 (1) K.P.J Rg 27 held that, it was deficiency of service that the bills for electricity consumption were not prepared and served at the appointed time in accordance with the billing cycle and there after harassing the Consumer with heavy arrears bills and disconnecting the power supply is arbitrary and high handed way, amounting to deficiency of service.
9. Following the afore mentioned Judgement and exhibits marked as well as legal aspects, it appears that short fall bill was issued to the complainant on whims and fancies of the opposite party, as they cannot issue an arrears bill for consumption for a period exceeding three years and the same is clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite party.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party not to pressure the complainant for the short fall amount of RS. 33,234/-, as the said claim is barred by limitation and the opposite party is directed to adjust the short fall amount of RS.10, 000/- already paid by the complainant in future bills.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictated corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 9th day of June 2004.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
