F.A.No. 673  OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.129 OF 2009 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM VIZIANAGARAM

Between

Sri Hochi Babu S/o late Subbaya
Aged about 56 years, Door.No.204,
Rajeevnagar Colony, Vizianagaram-2
Vizianagaram Mandal & Dist.

                                                                Appellant/complainant                                 

        A N D

The Superintendent Engineer (Operations)
APEPDC Ltd., Dasannapeta,
Vizaianagaram.
                                                                Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant              Party in Person

Counsel for the Respondent           Sri O.Manohar Reddy

 QUORUM:                 SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

                            SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                          TUESDAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY

                                            TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
                                             ***

The Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant against the Order of the District Forum, Vizianagaram.

The factual matrix of the case as delineated   in the complaint is that Power supply was obtained to the house of the complainant in the name of his wife Suseela, through Service connection No.38809.   The power was utilized for domestic purpose. The Respondent had replaced the existing meter with a new meter and since then the complainant has been issued bills, with excessive values. The complainant has intimated the matter to the Respondent-I. There was a power failure on 14.10.2009 at night, as a result of which the complainant suffered recurrence of heart disease, which was previously healed. The Respondent had not intimated the timings during which they would effect the power cut in the village. The complainant has sought for the revision of the bills.

The Respondents resisted the claim by filing counter contended that they are not aware of the relationship between the complainant H.Suseela in whose name the S.C.No.38809 was sanctioned by them. It is submitted that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint. Issuing of any excess bill after installation of the new meter is denied. The Respondent attended to all the representations of the Appellant. It is submitted that the complainant has lodged complaint before C.G.R.F., A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd. & C.G.No.93/09 is pending for disposal.

The District Forum has dismissed the complaint by a non-speaking order.

The points for consideration are :

i)      Whether the complainant has locus standi to maintain the
        complaint ?

ii)      Whether the complaint is maintainable in view of pendency of C.G.No.93/09 ?

iii)     to ward relief ?

Points 1 & 2: The Service Connection bearing No.38809 was sanctioned by the Respondents in the name of complainant’s wife H.Suseela. The complainant has filed the complaint complaining of excess  billing and incorrect meter reading. Admittedly, the Service connection does not stand in the name of the complainant. The complainant has not filed any authorization from his wife where of he could be empowered to lodge the complaint and prosecure it.

The complainant had not denied the statement of the Respondents that he had approached the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum and lodged C.G.No.93/09 and the same is pending before the Forum. The Respondents have contested that the complainant having opted for seeking relief from Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, cannot be heard before the District Forum seeking the very same relief that has been sought for before the C.G.R.F., A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd. The Respondents have filed copy of letter submitted by the Assistant Divisioonal Engineer before the CGRF, APEPDC Ltd., Visakhapatnam, wherein it has been stated that the meter installed in respect of S.C.No.38809 was defective and its status was sluggish. The Assistant Engineer has, accordingly changed the meter with a new meter on 25.1.2009. Further, it was stated that the Asst.Engineer, Vizianagaram has recommended for the C.C. Bills for 4/09 to 9/09 on the basis of average bill amount. Accordingly Asst.Accounts Officer has revised the C.C. Bills and adjusted the amount of Rs.213/- vide proceedings RF No.6/11-09, dated 6.11.07. Hence in view of the letter of the Asst. Divisional Engineer, Vizianagaram it can be said that the grievance of the complainant was given due redressal. It is not known as to what is the result of C.G.No.93/09. As reported by the Opposite Parties it is deemed that C.G.No.93/09 is pending before C.G.R.F. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the Appeal. The Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Point No.3:

In the result the appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER

                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER

Dt.27.07.2010

KMK*