Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/73/2015

Nemala Padmavathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superinteding Engineer, E.P.D.C. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rep. by Parishkruthi

13 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                       Date of filing:   19.12.2015

                                                                                                                                                       Date of Order: 13.12.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

 

                                                         PRESENT:  Smt. D. Leelavathi, B.Sc., B.L.               PRESIDENT

                                         Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L.,  MEMBER          

                 

                Tuesday, the 13^th day of December, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.73 /2015

Between:-

 

Nemala Padmavathi, W/o. Srinivasarao,

Hindu, aged 46 years, R/o.D.No.73-12-5/2,

Narayanapuram, Rajamahendravaram,

Rep. by Secretary, Parishkruthi.                                                                                                             …        Complainant

 

                        And

 

1)  The Superintending Engineer,

      E.P.D.C. Ltd., Godavari Bund,

      Rajamahendravaram.

 

2)  The Asst. Engineer, Operations,

      D-5, Y-Junction, Rajamahendravaram.

 

3)  The Asst. Divisional Engineer,

      C.T. Meter, E.P.D.C. of A.P. Ltd.,

      Godavari Bund, Rajamahendravaram.                                                                                             …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 30.11.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Secretary, Parishkruthi for the complainant and Sri J.V. Subbarao, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to withdraw the bill amount of Rs.37,917/-; to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and damages and pay Rs.2,000/- towards complaint charges.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:-  It is submitted that the complainant is having service connection No.78714 within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant came to know through the person who used to take reading that the meter was not showing the reading and stalled at reading as 4867. Immediately, the complainant approached through her husband to the 2^nd opposite party on the advise of the lineman and informed that the meter reading was jumped from 4867 to 14019. Thus, the meter was jumped up to 9150 units. The service connection is purely residential service with two tube lights, one fan and a T.V.  There were no electronic items in the house which would consume heavy load. The complainant belongs to lower income group and as such she never maintained electronic items in the house. The complainant gave representation  dt.23.4.2015 to the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party advised the complainant to apply for meter testing for which an amount of Rs.100/- was paid vide DD 23.4.2015. Subsequently, after four months, the complainant was asked to come to Bommuru office for meter testing on 4.9.2015. The said report was handed over to the opposite party after a gap of nearly 30 days. Later lineman asked the complainant to approach the 2^nd opposite party who informed orally that the complainant had to pay the charges for excess reading of 9152 jumped units as in the test report, the meter is showing correct reading. The service was disconnected by the 3^rd opposite party demanding to pay an amount of Rs.37,917/-. Thus, within 18 days, the jumped reading is shown at 9152 units. Immediately, the complainant approached A.D.E. i.e. the 3^rd opposite party and informed the injustice caused to her who contacted the 2^nd opposite party to go for personal inspection. On perusal of the test report, it clearly indicates that testing was performed by the department people from the reading of 14019 but not from the previous reading of 4867 i.e. before the jump in the meter. The complainant has two other service connections bearing Nos.80649 and 120664 in the same door number and threatening the complainant unless the bill amount is paid they will disconnect the other two service connections also. Hence, the complaint.   

3.         The 2^nd opposite party filed its written version and the same was adopted by the opposite parties 1 and 3 and denied the allegations made in the complaint and the complaint is unsustainable either under law or on facts. This opposite party submits that it is true that the complainant is the registered consumer of service connection No.78714 – CAT-1- Domestic within the jurisdiction of D-5, Rajamahendravaram is not disputed, but it is untrue and untenable that the meter reading suddenly jumped from the digit 4867 to 14019 and that the meter recorded an excess of 9150 units at a stretch. It is further untrue and untenable that there were no electronic items belong to lower income group. The allegation that the meter was stuck up at the reading 4867 is untrue and untenable. In fact, the meter was never stuck up and was recording the actual consumption availed by the complainant by the time the meter was changed on 29.4.2015 with reading 14019. The meter was tested by the 3^rd opposite party in the presence of the husband of the consumer on 4.9.2015. The M.R.T. test revealed that the meter was in working condition and was found correct and that there was no creeping on the meter reading. It is relevant to submit that there are 2 other service connections in the same premises bearing No.80649 and 120664 and therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant belong to a person of lower income group. This opposite party submits that it is firmly believed that the complainant with the active support of the meter readers must have managed to see that the actual readings are not taken down regularly by the meter readers which ultimately resulted in final reading 14019 at the time of replacement of the meter. This opposite party submits that there is no excess billing and the complainant is not entitled to claim damages of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and hardship due to wrong disconnection. This opposite party further submits that since the meter was found to be perfectly working, there is no need to withdraw the bill under which a demand was raised in a sum of Rs.37,917/-. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the 2^nd opposite party and Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked for the opposite parties. Written arguments filed on behalf of both parties.

5.         Heard both sides.  

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  As per the available record, the complainant herein obtained electricity service connection vide No.078714 from the opposite parties under the jurisdiction of the 2^nd opposite party herein i.e., D-5 Section. The opposite parties used to issue power consumption monthly bills contained in Ex.A1 to the complainant. It is observed that the bill for the month of 10.09.2014 to 08.11.2014 received for Rs.579/-, the bill for 07.01.2015 to 07.02.2015 is for Rs.71/-, the bill for 07.02.2015 to 05.03.2015 is for Rs.171/- for one unit, the bill for 05.03.2015 to 06.04.2015 is for Rs.102/- for 0 units and the bill for 10.09.2015 to 08.10.2015 is for Rs.37,917/- for 314 units vide Ex.A1 bills. The complainant herein wrote a letter dt.23.4.2015 vide Ex.A2 to the A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Rajamahendravaram complaining that the electricity service meter was changed on 22.04.2015 as the earlier meter was stopped running. The reading of the said meter at the time of change was noted as 14019 units whereas the bill dated 05.03.2015 issued by the opposite parties was noted as 4867 units. So, the reading was jumped and because of that 9150 units were added additionally to their monthly bill. The complainant herein further paid an amount of Rs.100/- through D.D. on 23.04.2015 to the opposite parties vide Ex.A3 towards fee for meter reading test report and the meter was changed on 29.04.2015 as per Ex.A1. Ex.A4 = Ex.B2 is the said test report dated 04.09.2015 issued by the A.P.E.P.D.C.L. The test report contained that two numbers of MRT seals are intact. Meter is satisfactory. Percentage of error is (-) 0.17%.  Further, as per the test results, the meter working in good condition and found correct. Since the percentage of error is (-) 0.17% and the said report was signed by the consumer and the officials of the opposite parties. Ex.A5 is the bills for Rs.1722/- paid to the opposite parties and Ex.A6 is also bill for Rs.129/- paid to the opposite parties by the complainant.           

            The grievance of the complainant is that the meter was jumped suddenly from 4867 to 14019 and because of that they have to pay bill for 9150 units additionally and represented the same on 23.4.2015 to the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party advised for meter testing on payment of Rs.100/- through D.D. and the meter testing was done on 04.09.2015. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1722/- on 16.10.2015 towards electricity charges and the electricity supply was restored. Again on 13.11.2015, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.127/- as demanded by the 2^nd opposite party without any reading. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties highhandedly disconnected the electrical supply basing on technicalities and as the complainant got two other service connections in the same door number vide S.C. Nos.80649 and 120664, the opposite parties threatening to disconnect the connections.

            The 2^nd opposite party contended that the M.R.T. revealed that the meter was in working condition, found correct and there was no creeping of the meter reading. The complainant got two more service connections in the same premises and cannot be said that the complainant belonged to lower income group. The opposite parties filed Meter reading particulars of the complainant’s S.C.No.078714 from 01/2014 to 08/2015 and further contended that the actual readings of the meter pertaining to the complainant’s service connection i.e. 078714 were not taken down regularly with the support of the outsourced meter readers and so, the final reading ultimately resulted 14019 units at the time of replacement of the meter resulting in demand for a sum of Rs.37,917/- by the opposite parties.       

            The opposite parties further relied on Clause 14 of General Terms and Conditions of Supply r/w Section 42(5) of Electricity Act, 2003 being a special enactment containing special provisions relating to redressal of grievances of the consumers like the complainant. As per the Indian Electricity Act “1. Any dispute under these Regulations between a Distribution Licensee and a person availing open access shall be adjudicated upon by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. 2. Any dispute under these Regulations between a Distribution Licensee and a Supplier shall be referred to the Commission for adjudication or to such other forum as may be specified”.

(e) Above provision relating to open access Regulations contemplate only two classes of disputes (i) between a consumer and a Distribution Licensee and (ii) between a Supplier (Generating Company) and a Distribution Licensee.

When there are specific provisions providing powers to Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum to resolve the dispute between the Consumer and Licensee, the Forums cannot invoke its powers to resolve the said disputes.

            With the discussion held supra, we observed that this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the Fora’s jurisdiction is ousted as per the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed with a direction to the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum/court for redressal of his grievance against the opposite parties.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the   13^th day of December, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-                                                                                                        Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT

         

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:  None.                                                                        FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

Ex.A1    Bills Nos.5 issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A2    Letter dt.23.04.2015 by the complainant.

Ex.A3    Copy of the D.D. Dt.23.04.2015.

Ex.A4    Test report by the opposite party No.3.

Ex.A5    Receipt dt.16.10.2015.

Ex.A6    Receipt dt.13.11.2015.

 

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:- 

 

Ex.B1    Copy of Meter change Slip dt.29.04.2015.

Ex.B2    Copy of L.T. Meter Test Report dt.04.09.2015.

Ex.B3    Copy of Meter Reading particulars from 1/2014 to 8/2015.

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                                 Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                                      PRESIDENT