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 05^th day of November, 2013

                                              CC 04 of 2013                                

Between:

Afzal Ahmed S/o late Shaik Ahmed,

Age:42 years, Occ: Agriculturist,

R/o Near Post Office,

Narsapur, Medak District.                                                       ……Complainant                       

                   And

1. The Superintendent Engineer,

APCPDCL, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. Divisional Engineer,

APCPDCL, Medak Divisional, Medak.

3. Additional Divisional Engineer,

APCPDCL, Narsapur.

4. 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 Sri Patil Vithal Rao, President)

                  Briefly stated the facts leading to filing of this case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complainant has been using electricity bearing service connection no. 605 to his bore well to irrigate the agricultural land in survey no. 80/2/2 to the extent of 3ac-36guts situated within the limits of Narsapur town, Medak district but the opposite parties arbitrarily started charging the electricity bills under commercial category illegally. The further case of the complainant is that he paid the said bills as per their demand under protest only to avoid disconnection of service. He has also contended that infact he is paying electricity bills of the service connection no. 123 which is being used for domestic purposes. In view of the above the complainant prayed to allow the complaint by directing the opposite parties not to collect the electricity bills under commercial category and to return back the excess amount paid by him with regard to the SC.No. 605 and award compensation of Rs. 75,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.         The opposite parties resisted the claim by way of filing counter contending that infact the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that actually the service connection no. 605 is on the name of his brother by name Ali Ahmed. The further defense of the opposite parties is that the said Ali Ahmed had filed a case in CC. no. 48/2010 on the file of this Forum with regard to the same subject matter but when it was dismissed, he got filed the present case again through his brother, Afzal Ahmed, when the department demanded him to pay the outstanding arrears. The opposite parties have also contended that infact the electrical energy charges are  being collected from Mr. Ali Ahmed as per rules as he is using the land for horticulture purpose and that as such there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have also given particulars of the units consumed by Mr. Ali Ahmed and the energy charges for the same. For all these reasons they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.           The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit as PW. 1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7 to substantiate his claim. The opposite parties have filed evidence affidavit of their Assistant Divisional Engineer/Operation as RW. 1 and marked Exs. B1 to B3 in defence.

                  The parties did not choose to file written arguments. Heard both the counsel.

4.           Now the point for consideration is that whether the complainant is a consumer, if so, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for the reliefs claimed by the complainant?

Point:

5.           The complainant has contended that he is owner and possessor of an agricultural land to the extent of 3ac-36guts in Sy.no. 80/2/2 situated within the limits of Narsapur town of Medak District and that has been raising mango plants therein with the help of electric service connection vide meter no. 605 provided by the APCPDCL to his bore well. But virtually he did not file any sufficient and satisfactory evidence to prove the same when the opposite parties have specifically and categorically dinied and disputed the same. Exs. A1 to A3 are original electricity bills-cum-notices and Exs.A4 & A5 are the original bills with regard to the remittances made for the demand bills. No doubt the name of complainant herein appears on the bills, Exs. A1 to A3 but the said bills pertain to service connection no. 123 which is admittedly a domestic one of the complainant. Even the two bills under Ex. A5 wherein he made remittances of Rs. 274/- and Rs. 202/- also pertain for the same domestic service connection. Even the receipt bearing no. 339205 under Ex. A4 for a sum of Rs. 580/- also pertains for the same service connection, 123. Thus virtually no document filed by him supports his claim. On the other hand the receipt bearing no. 339206 under Ex. A4 towards payment of energy charges of Rs. 1593/- is with regard to service connection no. 605 which pertains to Mr. Ali Ahmed as evident from Ex. A5. This document Ex. A5 consists of two receipts towards remittances of Rs. 1593/- and Rs. 1604/- made by Mr. Ali Ahmed towards his service connection no. 605. Thus these two documents, Ex. A4 & A5, speak loudly against the complainant. 

6.           The learned defense counsel, during the course of arguments submitted a copy of order dated. 29.04.2011 passed by this Forum in CC. No. 48/2010 and assailed maintainability of the present case. This document clearly reveals that one Mr. Ali Ahmed, brother of the complainant herein had filed CC. no. 48/2010 against the opposite parties herein for the similar reliefs as in the present case wherein this Forum had observed that S.C.no. 443 pertains to domestic service connection and SC. No. 605 pertains to agricultural service connection of Mr. Ali Ahmed in respect of his house and agricultural land respectively.

7.               The opposite parties have also relied on a copy of energy billing statement vide Ex. B1, a copy of energy billing system for service connection no. 605 vide Ex.B2 and a copy of memo dated 18.09.2007 with regard to providing of free power services to the agriculturist vide Ex. B3. Exs. B1 & B2 are on the name of Mr. Ali Ahmed in respect of the energy charges of his service connection no. 605. As per the proceedings under Ex.B3 the APCPDCL has instructed all the Superintending Engineers, Operation to follow the formula for assessment of energy against all I.T. Assessees & Corporate Farmers. This document also reveals that free power services were provided to other agriculturists except the above category. The affidavit of RW.1 also substantiates the contents of Exs.B1 to B3.

8.               The above noted facts clearly establish and prove the defense setup by the opposite parties to the effect that Mr. Ali Ahmed got filed the present case through his brother Mr. Afzal Ahmed with an intention to evade payment of outstanding arrears of energy charges in respect of his agricultural service connection no. 605.

9.           It is further to be noted that the complainant herein, in his legal notice to the opposite parties vide Ex. A6, has claimed service connection no. 443 as of his domestic one but contrary to it in the pleadings of the complaint he referred service connection no. 123 as of his domestic. Further, the copy of order dated. 29.04.2011 in CC. no. 48/2010, referred supra, shows that the said service connection no. 443 belongs to the complainant’s brother Mr. Ali Ahmed for his domestic use. Thus the legal notice, Ex. A6 also weakens the complainant’s claim. Ex. A7 is with regard to postal receipts of Ex. A6.

10.               In view of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the complainant is not a consumer under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus the present complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts. In this view of the matter the decision is “Mohammed Ziaul Hussain vs APSEB and Ors”, 2002 (6) ALD 601 referred to by the complainant in his pleadings does not come to his rescue. In the said decision our Hon’ble High Court held that the agricultural electrical service connection even if being used for growing the plants of the category of horticulture cannot be charged as category-II commercial.  But the facts of the present case completely differ from the facts of the said decision. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.              The point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

12.            In the result, the complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a 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