Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/85/2015

Madala Prameela, W/o Madala Chandrasekharam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, A.P.S.P.D.L - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.S. Vijayasaradhi

18 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                          Date of filing       : 21-09-2015

                                          Date of disposal  : 18-03-2016 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Friday, this the 18th day of MARCH, 2016.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

                                          C.C.No.85/2015

Madala Prameela

W/o.Madala Chandrasekharam

Hindu, aged about 58 years,

R/o.D.No.16-11-380, Katuridevi Nagar,

Pogathota, Nellore-524001.                                               …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1)The Superintending Engineer

   Operation Circle A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

   Nellore City.   

 

2)The Divisional Engineer, Operation

   APSPDCL, Vidyuth Bhavan Town I,

   Nellore City.

 

3) Asst. Divisional Engineer, Operation

    APSPDCL, Mini Bye pass Road,

    Nellore City.

 

4) Asst. Accounts Officer (AAO)

    Electrical Revenue Office ERO

    APSPDCL, Nellore City.                                                  …            Opposite parties

 

This matter coming on  10-03-2016   before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri  S.P.S.Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate for the complainant and  Sri  K.Padmanabhaiah,                                     

Advocate for the opposite parties and  having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

(BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

     This Consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to direct them to withdraw their illegal and unjust claim of exaggerated amount of Rs.9,45,645/- towards UCM charges; to give power supply to his shopping mall which bearing D.No.16-3-659 Rama Murthy Nagar, Mini bypass Road, Nellore City; to pay damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to her towards their reckless and adamant attitude towards her and to pay the costs of the complaint and also grant such other relief or reliefs as the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this consumer case is as stated as hereunder:

I.(a) It is the case of the complainant that she is the absolute owner of 3 storied building shopping mall which bearing door no.16-3-659, Rama Murthy Nagar, mini by-pass road, Nellore city. She is also at the request of her lessee applied to the opposite parties department for installation of H.T. supply required for starting A/c gold-show room.  She had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of bankers cheque on 08-05-2013 towards S.D. charges and another sum of Rs.3,83,010/- on 13-05-2013 towards development charges and net cost of the estimate to the opposite parties as per their directions.  While so, thereafter the lessee of the complainant at whose request, she had applied for H.T.installation, dropped from taking the premises on lease from her.  Because of that, she had sustained a heavy loss.  The opposite parties had also failed to give power supply to her till today inspite of her repeated requests.

(b)It is further submitted by the complainant in para-4 at page no.2 of her complaint that the opposite parties had sent notice letter dt.06-06-2015 to her alleging that installation work was completed by 21-04-2014 and she did not come to take power supply.  Then, the opposite parties had demanded to pay a sum of Rs.7,10,802/- towards U.C.M. Charges, even though the opposite parties did not give power supply to the premises of the complainant and though there was no any bilateral agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite parties.  Then, the complainant was made a representation dt.14-08-2015 to the opposite parties requesting them to withdraw their demand and exempt her from paying the said UCM charges.  It is further humbly submitted by the complainant that the opposite parties without considering her said representation had sent another notice demanding to pay Rs.9,45,465/- towards UCM bills from 21-07-2014 to 31-08-2015.  It is very much arbitrary, illegal and unjust.  The opposite parties had still failed to give power supply to the complainant’s premises.  The complainant was unable to pay such huge amount to the opposite parties without enjoying any benefit of power supply to her premises.  As earlier said, the complainant had already paid a total sum of Rs.5,33,010/- to the opposite parties towards development and installation and equipment chares.  Hence, the demands of the opposite parties levying such amount of Rs.9,45,465/- is amounts to unfair trade practice and denying to give power supply to her premises amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Because of due to the said adamant attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant had been put too much inconvenience and mental agony for which she is entitled to damages of Rs.2,00,000/-.  So, the complainant is constrained to file the complaint for justice.

( c ) There are causes of action to file the complaint which are narrated  in para-5 of the complaint of the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

 

II.  DEFENCE:

 

      The 2^nd opposite party was resisted the complaint by filing a written version/counter dt.07-10-2015 denying the allegations of the complaint. An adoption memo was filed on 07-10-2015 by adopting the counter of 2^nd opposite party by the opposite parties 1,3 and 4.  The complaint is not just and proper under law.  The complainant is put to strict proof of his allegations against the opposite parties 1 to 4.

 

(i) It is submitted by the opposite parties in para-3 of their written version/counter that divisional engineer/operation/Nellore town, issued a notice to the Consumer vide Lr. no. DEE/O/NLR/(T)COMML/F.DOC.NO/

D.No.357/14 dt.23-04-2014 by stating that the works completed by the APSPDCL on 21-04-2014 but the consumer did not come forwarded to take supply.  As per the provisions of general terms and conditions of supply under clause no.5.9.2.1 – the Consumer shall pay the unconnected minimum charges from the date of expiry of 3 months notice or from the date of commencement of supply whichever is earlier as per the tariff order.  Accordingly, the UCM bills from 21-07-2014 to 31-08-2015 issued for an amount of Rs.9,45,465/- (bills enclosed) as per the Government Terms and conditions of supply (GTCS) under clause no.5.9.2.1 approved by the A.P. Electricity Regularity Commission.

(ii)  It is submitted by the opposite parties in para-3 at page no.2 of their written version/counter that UCM (un-connected monthly minimum charges) bills prepared as per the tariff order approved by the Hon’ble APERC MD Charges 80% of the CMD i.e., 150 X 80/100 = 120 KVA @ Rs.350/- KVA = 42000.00 per month, Energy charges minimum units 25 units per KVA i.e., 120 X 25 =3000units @ Rs.6,90/Unit = 20700.00 per month and customer charges Rs.1125.00 per month upto 31-03-2015.  The new tariff applied w.e.f. 01-04-2015 and the unconnected monthly minimum charges bills prepared with new rates i.e., MD Charges 120 KVA @ Rs.371/KVA = 44,520.00 per month and Energy charges 3000 units @ Rs.7.25/unit = 21750 per month and customer charges Rs.1125.00 per month.  The UCM bills issued including surcharge for delayed days @ Ps.0.05/Day/100 as per the tariff order.  Accordingly the bills issued month wise as it is follows as:

 

 

Sl.No.	Month	From                             To	Amount Rs.
1.	07/2014	21-07-2014 to 31-07-2014	22647.00
2.	08/2014	01-08-2014 to 31-08-2014	64006.00
3.	09/2014	01-09-2014 to30-09-2014	65012.00
4.	10/2014	01-10-2014 to 31-10-2014	65676.00
5.	11/2014	01-11-2014 to 30-11-2014	66558.00
6.	12/2014	01-12-2014 to 31-12-2014	67654.00
7.	01/2015	01-01-2015 to 31-01-2015	68644.00
8.	02/2015	01-02-2015 to 28-02-2015	69633.00
9.	03/2015	01-03-2015 to 31-03-2015	69918.00
10.	04/2015	01-04-2015 to 30-04-2015	75182.00
11.	05/2015	01-05-2015 to 31-05-2015	75872.00
12.	06/2015	01-06-2015 to 30-06-2015	77299.00
13.	07/2015	01-07-2015 to 31-07-2015	77975.00
14.	08/2015	01-08-2015 to 31-08-2015	79389.00
15.		TOTAL :	945465.00

 

(iii) It is also further submitted by the opposite parties at page no.3 of their written version/counter that as per clause no.5.9.2.1. of general terms and conditions of supply of APSPDCL Ltd., the Consumer should pay the unconnected monthly charges if, he fails to take the service connection within 3 months from the date of notice issued to the Consumer.  Hence, the petitioner should pay unconnected minimum monthly charges from 23-07-2014.  Accordingly a notice was issued to consumer/petitioner on 23-04-2014 to pay the said charges as per table mentioned above.  The total amount due is Rs.9,45,465/- upto 23-08-2015.

 

III.  The complainant had filed her chief- affidavit on 27-11-2015  and the documents which are marked on her behalf as Exs.A1 to A8; whereas  the 2^nd opposite party through its divisional engineer (operation) APSPDCL Ltd. Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore City, had also filed its chief-affidavit on 11-01-2016 and marked the only document on their behalf as Ex.B1.  The written arguments of the complainant had also filed on 11-01-2016 whereas the opposite parties are also filed their written arguments in support of the case on 11-01-2016.

 

IV.   Basing on the material available on the record, the points that arise for determination are namely:-

(a)Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

 

V.  POINTS 1 AND 2 :

     In view of these two points are inter-related and depends on each other, they have been taken up together for discussion and determination of the case.  The complainant has once again reiterated the facts of the case, basing on the complaint, affidavit and documents filed herein.  It is nothing but repetition of them once again in her complaint.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the complainant:

         Sri S.P.S.Vijaya Saradhi, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. 

       He has also further contended that by reiterating once again the contents of the complaint and stressed much on the point that the complainant has also filed a petition in I.A.No.145/2015 praying this Hon’ble Forum to pass interim orders and after respondents filed their counter, this Hon’ble Forum was pleased to pass interim orders dt.           08-10-2015 directing the respondents/opposite parties to give power supply to the complainant’s shopping mall subject to payment of Rs.1,35,065/- by the complainant immediately after receipt of the interim order. The complainant had paid the said amount of Rs.1,35,065/- to the respondents by way of DD No.088411 dt.9-10-2015 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Nellore.  Then on 15-10-2015 the respondents/opposite parties entered into agreement for supply of electricity at high tension with the complainant.  Copy supplied to the complainant was filed before this Hon’ble Forum.  Then the respondents gave power supply to the complainant’s shopping mall.

    The said learned counsel for the complainant has further alleged and narrated during his oral arguments that Ex.A1 is the letter dated              30-03-2013 addressed to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party that the amounts specified in it payable and submit the relevant documents concerned mentioned in the said letter.  Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are proof of payments to the 2^nd opposite party by way of Banker’s Cheque and another receipt of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.3,83,010 respectively.  With regard to UCM bills of the opposite party to the complainant and its proceedings of 2^nd opposite party dated 06-06-2015 i.e., Ex.A4 the consumer/complainant was not ready to take power supply; Ex.A5 is the letter dt.14-08-2015 from the complainant to the chairman and Managing Director, Corporate office of the opposite parties by stating that to waive UCM charges; Ex.A6 is the letter dt.18-09-2015 issued to the complainant by 2^nd opposite party for payment of UCM bills upto 8/15 for an amount of Rs.9,45,465/- for releasing of H.T. Service; Ex.A7 is the photo copy of Lakshmi Vilas Bank for Rs.1,35,065/- issued to 2^nd opposite party and  a memo filed by the complainant and Ex.A8;  is the agreement for supply of electricity at high tension between the complainant and the opposite parties.  These documents which are support the case of complainant’s allegations against the opposite parties.

   A memo was filed by the complainant on 10-03-2016 by stating that an agreement was entered into with the opposite parties on 15-10-2015 as per orders of this Hon’ble Consumer Forum in I.A.No.145/2015 after paying Rs.1,35,065/- by him.  The complainant is further stated that the above said amount of Rs.1,35,065/- may be directed to be refunded by way of  adjusting in future electricity bills for the sake of convenience.  It is further urged by the said learned counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties have no objection in adjusting the said amount in future bills and it is recorded by the Hon’ble Consumer Forum in this regard.

    It is humbly submitted that the respondents/opposite parties got filed counter with all false frivolous baseless allegations.

   The complainant humbly submits that this Hon’ble Forum had pretty well knew that any obligation/liability commences only from the date of entering into written agreement between both the parties.

   It is pertinent to note that the respondents entered into agreement dt.    15-10-2015 i.e., after the complainant filed this complaint and after this Honourable Forum passed Interim Orders in I.A.No.145/2015 in C.C.No.85/2015. When there is no Privity of contract between the complainant and the respondents/Ops. Prior to 15-10-2015, the levying of UCM charges that too at exaggerated amount Rs.9,45,645/-.  The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount to the opposite parties.  The said direction of the opposite parties/respondents to pay Rs.9,45,545/- even without entering into agreement and even without giving power supply to the complainant is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.  The said act of the opposite parties/respondents illegally demanding the complainant to pay the said UCM charges unnecessarily, amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the C.P.Act, 1986.  Hence, the respondents/opposite parties are not entitled to claim the alleged UCM charges.  Hence, they are liable to refund the said amount of Rs.1,35,065/- to the complainant. So, he has further prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to allow the complaint as prayed for.

 

Oral Submissions by the learned counsel for the opposite parties:

     On the other hand, the learned counsel of the opposite parties              Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, has also equally vehemently argued that the written version/counter, affidavit and written arguments may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments. 

   He has also further argued that as per the rules and regulations as well as tariff of the opposite parties, levied the UCM charges as mentioned in their counter may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.

      The only document which is marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of the opposite parties proves their allegation against the complainant with regard to payment of UCM charges by way of letter dt.23-04-2014, demanding the complainant to pay unconnected monthly minimum charges.

       He has also further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complaint.  Finally, he has prayed that the Hon’ble Consumer Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Forum’s Findings and its observations

       Heard, the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the record very carefully. The nature of liability under the C.P.Act, 1986 is not strict liability but fault liability. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and produced their documentary evidence.   This Consumer case is lingering on the file since 1 year for a decision for some reason or the other.  The respective counsels for their parties have submitted their oral arguments of the case.

     To appreciate the controversy in this consumer case, it would be appropriate if we narrate all the circumstances of the case both on question of facts as well as question of Law in detail.

         Law is a powerful instrument for realizing the hopes and aspirations of the people through well devised socio-economic and eco-legal changes.  The emerging Consumer Law is one in this direction.  Supply of Electricity for domestic and industrial use is also as per express provisions of Section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act, 1986,  a service.  Being a service, but a person receiving supply of electrical energy for consideration can invoke  jurisdiction of Consumer      Fora. Virtually, the suppliers of electricity are expected to exhibit due fair play and care.  Where electricity bill has been drawn by the supplier of electricity without following the procedure prescribed under section 135 of the Indian Electricity Act, such bill will be illegal – 2010(3) CPR 54.

     In this consumer Case, the opposite parties are not entered into an agreement with the complainant for supply of electrical energy to him, prior to 13-10-2015. Till then, the complainant/consumer has no privity of contract with the opposite parties.  Power supply is not provided to him but levied UCM bills for the reasons best known to the opposite parties.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  Ultimately, the opposite parties themselves are coming forward to accept the memo dated  10-03-2016 filed by the complainant and there is no objection on their part to adjust future electricity bills and endorsed the same on the same day itself on the memo. 

 

Reasons for the order:

 

1.The electricity department officials (Ops) entered into an agreement with the complainant (Ex.A8) and prior to that UCM bills were prepared by the opposite parties and ignoring the letter (Ex.A5) and further issued (Ex.A4) to the complainant, how far, is it justified on the part of opposite parties? And to issue such bills are arbitrary, illegal and unenforceable.  It is not valid and it is not correct view.

 

2. After receiving the initial payments of complainant to a tune of Rs.5,33,010/- by the opposite parties but further delayed inspite of the letter(Ex.A5) and further asking or demanding the complainant to pay and it is absolutely not permissible.  The principles of natural justice if we apply, the opposite parties are certainly acted illegally depends upon the sum and substance of the facts of the case.  One cannot enrich at the cost of other.  It is unjust.  The officials of the opposite parties have acted with unreasonableness and finally agreed to adjust the amount in future bills.  But, saying that the opposite parties have agreed that there is deficiency in service on their part towards the complainant.

 

3. The opposite parties had already received the amounts from the complainant in this regard as per Exs.A2 and A3 in the month of May, 2013.

 

        These are the reasons for the order, in favour of the complainant.

 

       The complainant has proved her case with documentary proof of allegations against the opposite parties by way of Exs.A1 to A8.  This case demonstrates highly unethical and unscrupulous conduct of the opposite parties. The Consumer Forum is primarily would function on the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.  There is force in the contentions of the said learned counsel for the complainant.  Having considered the present complaint in the light of above observations, we are of the considered opinion that ends of justice would meet if the complaint be allowed with a direction as hereby mentioned in POINT No.3 hereunder.  Mental agony cannot be measured in terms of money.  The complainant has suffered considerably and she must be suitably compensated.  These two points are held in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties, accordingly.

 

 

POINT NO.3:  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, ordering the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and sufferings.  The amount of Rs.1,35,065/- (Rupees one lakh, thirty five thousand and sixty five only) already paid by the complainant to the opposite parties as per I.A.No.145/2015, is further ordered that it shall be refunded by way of adjusting in future electricity bills of complainant by the opposite parties as agreed upon in view of memo filed by her and also to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 18th day of MARCH,                       2016.    

 

     

             Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

27-11-2015

:

Madala Prameela, W/o.Madala Chandraekharam, Hindu, aged about 58 years, R/o.D.No.16-11-380, Kasturidevi Nagar, Pogathota, Nellore-524001.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

RW1

11-01-2016

:

Y.Sanjay Kumar, S/o.Subba Rao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, working as Divisional Engineer, (operation) APSPDCL Ltd. Vidyuth Bhavan, Nellore City.

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	30-03-2013	:	Letter addressed by the 1st opposite party to the complainant directing the complainant to pay Rs.3,83,010/- towards Dev.charges & Net cost of estimate and to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards S.D.Charges.
Ex.A2	08-05-2013	:	Photostat copy of bankers cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn by the State Bank of Hyderabad bearing no.777518.
Ex.A3	13-05-2013	:	Receipt for Rs.3,83,010/- issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.A4	06-06-2015	:	Photostat copy of letter addressed by the  Senior Accounts Officer to the Divisional Engineer Operation-Town regarding the amount of Rs.7,10,802/- towards UCM charges.
Ex.A5	14-08-2015	:	Request letter addressed by the complainant to the Chairman and Managing Director Corporate Office to exempt her from paying the said UCM charges.
Ex.A6	18-09-2015	:	Demand letter got issued by the 1st opposite party directing the complainant to pay Rs.9,45,465/- towards UCM charges.
Ex.A7	09-10-2015	:	Counterfoil of DD for Rs.1,35,065/- taken in favour of 2nd opposite party along with Photostat copy of DD bearing no.088411 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank,  for Rs.1,35,065/- .
Ex.A8	13-10-2015	:	Appendix-IIA “Agreement for supply of electricity at High Tension” entered into between the complainant and the opposite parties’ department.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:                      

 

Ex.B1	23-04-2014	:	Photostat copy of letter No.DEE/O/NLR/T/CME/ D.No.283/2014 addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.

 

          Id/-                                                                                         PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

Copies to:

1. Sri S.P.S.Vijaya Saradhi, Advocate, Fathekhanpet, Nellore-3.
2. Sri K.Padmanabhaiah, advocate, “Sreerama Nilayam”, 1^st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-4

          

 

Date when order copies are issued: