BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Wednesday the 10th day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 22/08
Between:
C.H. Lakshmi Reddy, S/o. C.H. Subba Reddy, Proprietor M/s. New Laxmi Venkateswara, Slab Polishing Industry,
Bethamcharla, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
1.The Superintending Engineer, APCPDC Limited,
Opp.New Bus stand, Kurnool.
2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, operation, APCPDCL,
Dhone , Kurnool District.
3. The Assistant Engineer CT Meters,
Opp.New Bus stand, Kurnool. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.D.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, for the opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.22/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act , seeking direction on the opposite parties to cancel the assessment notice for back billing bearing Lr. No. ADE / 0 / 0NC / SBE / F . back billing / D . No. 952/06 dated 13-06-2007 and inspection charges , Rs. 50, 000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case alleging that the complainant as having power supply connection bearing ISE No. 4369 under category No. III to his factory viz., M/s. New Lakshmi Venkateswara Slab Industries running with 60 H.P capacity motor for his livelihood on self employment basis and was paying consumption charges ranging in between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/- regularly and the electronic meter fitted to said service connection was properly sealed by the opposite party from being meddled and on 03-05-2007 the opposite party No.3 took away the meter of his factory and broke open of the meter in the absence of the complainant without any prior notice and submitted a false report as to consumption and on its basis the opposite party No.2 issued a false assessment notice for the back billing to the tune of Rs. 2,24,103/- vide Lr.No. r. No. ADE / 0 / 0NC / SBE / F . back billing / D . No. 952/06 dated 13-06-2007 alleging in reference to MRI report that the meter has recorded 42.69 % less consumption on account of formation of carbon at tapping point in R – Phase potential . There being any significant variance in consumption and the billing being noted every month by the staff of the opposite parties without any compliant and the testing of the sealed meter being taken in the absence of complainant and the opposite parties as were reluctant to render justice on the said back billing and to the legal notice dated 1-8-2007 and the said conduct of the opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service besides to ensual of mental agony and cost of this case.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filling written version denying of their liability to the complainants claim and seeking the dismissal of the complaint.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.2 , adopted by opposite party No.3 , besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case as misconstuted alleging the complainant as industrialist as having another industry viz., Sai Srinivasa Marbles on the name of his wife and there by denying the alleged self employment basis and alleged ranged consumption , allege that as the electronic meter fitted to the complainants service connection being showing low voltage , the opposite party No.3 – an officer authorized for inspection inspected and observed less consumption by 42-69 % when compared to stranded meter , seized said meter in the presence of complainant himself obtaining his signature in token of his presence on the inspection report and tested it in C . T Meter Chamber R - Phase observed the slow movement and low voltage was on account of rust formation at tapping point and the said test report was sent to the opposite party for further action and the assessment being on said basis and as per Cl.7.5.1 of General terms and conditions of supply deny of any discrimination in back billing and the complainant having not availed the right of appeal to Divisional Engineer on said back billing said assessment or produces any of his purchases out put report , sale report to come to correct value of the loss of energy , the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for want of any deficiency on the par of the opposite parties as the seizure and testing was done in compliance of the due procedure and testing of meter also done in the presence of the employee present in the factory and as the supply of energy to complainant factory was for commercial purpose , the case of the complainant is out of the preview of C.P.Act .
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A4 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite parties 2 and 3.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiencies of the opposite parties making htem liable to complainant’s claim.
6. As there will be any occasion to test the meter at the time of noting the consumption reading , when its seals remained untampered , there is any unnaturality in the conduct of the opposite parties , on inspection suspecting the meter when it is showing low voltage and slow running .
7. As the slow movement of the meter ensuing low consumption of energy was attributed to the rust formation at the tapping point , any number of consumption bills in Ex.A1 remains of any avail as they cannot be a proof of defect free consumption reading .
8. The Ex.B1 test report of C.T .Meters service at site bearing the signature of the complainant, the complainant cannot take any inconsistence plea as to its occurrence in his absence and so the observation recitals in Ex.B1 binds him being the said premises is in his control .
9. The Ex.B2 is covering letter and the material in other papers of Ex.B2 are not only self explanatory but also assigns basis and reasonability for the back billing assessment made in Ex.A3 and A4 .
10. Hence there appears any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ex.A3 and A4 and causing demand for Rs. 2 ,24,103/- as the value of energy short billed at the normal rates .
11. As the back billing was done with a multiple factor arrived at the loss of energy of the recorded consumption units and there being any material that the said assessment was made beyond the period of 6 months and the inspection of testing being done either in the presence of the complainant or his representative at the place of inspection , the decision cited by the learned counsel for the complainant reported in 1997 ( 3) ALD 152 (DB) AP.High Court , 1999 ALD Cons Pg.8 AP , AR 1997 SC Pg.2793 and I ( 2008) CPJ 62 (NC) as to the back billing has any relevant application to the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. Consequently, there being any merit and force as to the alleged deficiency of the opposite parties and in the relief sought by the complainant , the case of the complainant is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10th day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. A bunch of Electricity demand bills and its receipts.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dated 01-08-2007 along with postal receipt and acknowledgement..
Ex.A3. Assessment notice dated 13-06-2007 of opposite parties
in two pages.
Ex.A4. Back billing notice dated 30-09-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Test report dated 03-05-2007.
Ex.B2. Letter dated 28-05-2007 .
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
