Date of Filing: 21-09-2012
Date of Disposal: 23-06-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Monday, the 23rd day of June, 2014
C.C.NO.65/2012
Between:
M.Sreeramulu
S/o Subbanna
D.No.2/813,
Basaveswara Temple Street,
Gorantla Village & Mandal
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Addl. Assistant Engineer (Operation),
APSPDCL, Gorantla Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The Assistant Divisional Engineer
APSPDCL, Puttaparthy Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The Divisional Engineer (Operation),
APSPDCL, Kadiri Village & Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District.
- The Superintendent Engineer,
APSPDCL, Engineering College Road,
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri R.Yerri Swamy, advocate for the complainant and Sri D.Sreedhar, Advocate for the Opposite parties 1 to 4 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 4 claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of reputation and mental agony, Rs.4,000/- towards the amount collected for reconnection, Rs.19,500/- towards loss of Earned Leave and Rs.2,116/- towards excess bill amount collected from the complainant and other expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of Gorantla Village. The complainant is a railway employee at Bangalore. The complainant has taken service connection bearing No.0622002012 from the opposite parties and was paying electricity charges regularly as per their bills. But in the month of April, 2010 the opposite parties have issued a bill for a sum of Rs.19,593/- showing the meter reading from 10799 to 14233. Due to the high bill issued by the opposite parties, the complainant made a request to check the meter and the same was removed and sent for test by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have not given any test report to the complainant. Later a new meter was installed on 07-12-2010 and the opposite parties have collected extra amount in the name of interest for the above said bill from October, 2010 from the complainant.
3. Subsequently on 19-12-2011 the employees of the opposite parties went to the house of the complainant and served form-A notice for Rs.19,759/- to the wife of the complainant and disconnected the service high-handedly. Then the complainant approached Assistant Engineer (Operation), Gorantla and on the advise of Assistant Engineer (Operation), the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to get reconnection. Then the complainant requested the Assistant Engineer (Operation), Gorantla to give the meter test report, which was sent by the opposite parties for testing for which the Assistant Engineer (Operation) informed the complainant that the test report was not available in the office.
4. Subsequently, the complainant has filed a case against the opposite parties before the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APSPDCL, Hyderabad against the alleged excess bill and vengeance attitude of the opposite parties towards the complainant. After examining both parties and considering the material on record the Forum passed the following order:
“ It is stated that the meter was sent to the test bench by A.E. in August, 2010 and received the test report on 02-03-2012 i.e. after lapse of complete 1½ year period, more-over it was vaguely replied that the meter test report is not readily traceable inspite of consumer approached in person with the opposite parties, above shows lethargic and negligent attitude of the opposite parties. Hence, Superintendent Engineer (Operation), to take suitable action on the opposite parties and action taken shall be informed to the Forum. “
5. The complainant aggrieved by the above said order as the Forum has not considered his request about the excess billing raised by the opposite parties and refused to refund the surcharge collected from the complainant. The complainant filed an appeal No.22/2012 before Vidyut Ombudsman, Office of the A.P.E.R.C., Hyderabad against the above said order. The Hon’ble Commissioner , Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad after hearing both sides and taking into consideration of the documentary evidence passed an award giving finding that “ so far claim for compensation is concerned it cannot be considered by this Forum as it is dispute which can be canvassed before a competent civil court in the form of damages. “ The complainant submit that the opposite parties have raised bill for an amount of Rs.19,593/- without any default on the part of the complainant and their failure for not giving meter test report in time clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Further the complainant submitted that he is an employee, who is working at Bangalore and due to the above said baseless allegations of the opposite parties, the complainant has to spend 13 days of earned leave to go around the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad and Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad.
7. Counter filed by the 1st opposite party stating that it is true and correct that in the month of April, 2010 the opposite parties have issued bill for a sum of Rs.19,593/- to the complainant’s HSC 2012 showing the meter reading from 10799 to 14233 and the said meter was sent for testing. The 1st opposite party submits that it is true and correct that the new meter was installed on 07-12-2010. Further the allegation that the opposite parties have collected extra amount in the name of interest for the above said bill from the month of October, 2010 is not true and correct. Further the allegation that on 19-12-2011 the employees of the opposite parties went to the house of the complainant and served form-A notice for a sum of Rs.19,759/- to the wife of the complainant and disconnected service connection high handedly is denied by the 1st opposite party.
8. Further the allegation made in the complaint that the complainant approached Assistant Engineer (Operation), Gorantla and the complainant paid Rs.4,000/- to get reconnection on the instructions of Assistant Engineer (operation) is true and correct. The further allegation made in the complaint that the complainant requested the opposite parties to furnish the test report but the opposite parties have refused for the same is not true and correct. The 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant has taken service connection long back and the final reading was 14233 on 10-05-2010 and the meter reading has jumped from 10799 to 14233 in the month of April, 2010 and May, 2010 and caused for accumulated consumption and bill was raised for a sum of Rs.19,593/-. The 1st opposite party further submitted that at the request of the complainant, the above said meter was sent for testing at Anantapur on 18-08-2010. The 1st opposite party submitted that the departmental lineman has taken the demand notice to the complainant for payment of Rs.19,593/- but the complainant failed to pay the amount, hence service connection was disconnected on 19-12-2011. The 1st opposite party further submitted that the complainant approached the opposite parties and requested for reconnection of his service and after collecting a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant service was reconnected. The 1st opposite party further submitted that in fact a copy of test report was served to the complainant by the opposite party on 18-08-2010 itself and in the test report it was clearly mentioned that the complainant meddled the meter for avoiding the recorded consumption of electricity.
9. The 1st opposite party submitted that the complainant is railway employee and who is working at Bangalore and due to the above baseless activities of opposite parties he had to fore-go 13 days of earned leave to pursue the above said matter at different Forums to get Redressal is denied by the opposite parties as the same is created to file this unjust compliant. The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they are not liable to pay any compensation towards loss of reputation or towards mental agony to the complainant.
10. The opposite parties 2 to 4 have filed a memo adopting the counter filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party.
11. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 to 4 ?
2. To what relief?
12. In order to prove the case of the complainant, evidence on affidavit of the complainant has been filed and marked Ex.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties, evidence on affidavit of 1st opposite party has been filed and marked Ex.B1 document.
13. Heard both sides.
14. POINT NO.1 – The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is a permanent resident of Gorantla Village and he is a railway employee working at Bangalore. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s service connection No.2012 meter reading had jumped from 10799 to 14233 in the month of April, 2010 and basing on the meter reading the opposite parties have issued a demand notice for a sum of Rs.19,593/-. Then the complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to test the meter and on his request the meter was sent for test report and a new meter was installed on 07-12-2010. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 19-12-2011 the employees of the opposite parties went to the house of the complainant and served form-A notice for Rs.19,759/- to the wife of the complainant and disconnected the service high handedly. The counsel for the complainant submitted that subsequently the complainant approached Assistant Engineer (operation), Gorantla and requested to reconnect the service connection and on the advise of the Assistant Engineer (operation), the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to get his service reconnected. Then the complainant asked for the test report of old meter and the opposite party has stated that the test report was not available in the office.
15. The counsel for the complainant submitted that as the opposite parties have not given test report of his old meter, he filed a complaint against the opposite parties before the Forum for Redressal of consumer grievances of A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad against the alleged excess bill and vengeance attitude of the opposite parties against the complainant and after examining both parties and considering the material on record the Forum passed the following order:
“ It is stated that the meter was sent to the test bench by A.E. in August, 2010 and received the test report on 02-03-2012 i.e. after a lapse of complete 1 ½ year period, more-over it was vaguely replied that the meter test report is not readily traceable inspite of consumer approached in person with the opposite parties, above shows lethargic and negligent attitude of the opposite parties. Hence, Superintendent Engineer (Operation), to take suitable action on the opposite parties and action taken shall be informed to the Forum. “
16. The counsel for the complainant submitted that aggrieved by the above said order, as the Forum has not considered his request about the excess billing raised by the opposite parties and refused to refund the surcharge collected from the complainant, the complainant filed an appeal No.22/12 before the Vidyut, Ombudsman, Office of the A.P.E.R.C., Hyderabad against the above said order. The counsel for the complainant submitted that Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad after hearing both sides and considering documentary evidence passed an award giving a finding that “ so far claim for compensation is concerned it cannot be considered by this Forum as it is dispute which can be filed before the competent civil court in the form of damages. “ The counsel for the complainant submitted that the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman clearly shows that there is no lapse on the part of the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as it is only on the account of the defective meter, meter reading has jumped and the complainant cannot be held liable for the defect in the meter. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have revised the bill amount to Rs.4,086/- and if that amount is paid by the complainant, the problem would be resolved. The counsel for the complainant argued that the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman clearly shows the negligence on the part of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable and the amount paid by the complainant is to be refunded by the opposite parties.
17. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no dispute with regard to issuing of bill for Rs.19,593/- as per the meter reading from 10799 to 14233 in the month of April, 2010. Further the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that at the request of the complainant his meter was sent for testing and a new meter was installed. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the amount as per demand notice was not paid by the complainant, the opposite parties have disconnected the service connection on 19-12-2011 and after the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- service connection was reconnected. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the complainant has meddled with the old meter as per the test reports. Hence the complaint is liable to pay as per the demand notice of the opposite parties. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that in order to avoid payment the complainant has approached the Forums. The counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no lapse on the part of the opposite parties and as per the orders of the Vidyut Ombudsman already a revised the bill for a sum of Rs.4,086/- was sent to resolve the matter. But the complainant failed to pay the said amount. Hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and they are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant.
18. After hearing the arguments and perusing the documents submitted by both sides. Ex.A2 Vidyut Ombudsman order clearly shows that the at the first instance when the complainant approached the Forum for Redressal of grievances, APSPDCL, Hyderabad, the Forum observed that the opposite parties have not communicated the test report of his old meter and this shows lethargic and negligent attitude of the opposite parties and opposite parties to take suitable action within 15 days from the date of order. But the opposite parties have not taken any action in this regard and aggrieved by the order of the Forum for Redressal of consumer grievances, APSPDCL, the complainant filed an appeal before the Vidyut Ombudsman and the opposite parties have reduced the bill to Rs.4,086/- and if that amount is paid they said that the matter would be resolved and order of the Vidyut Ombudsman clearly shows that the complainant has nothing to do with the meddling of the meter and if the complainant has meddled with the meter the opposite parties should have booked a case for theft of energy. Further the order clearly shows that there is no intervention of the complainant and the opposite parties have simply reduced the bill amount from Rs.19,593/- to Rs.4,086/- and the said order was also modified to the extent that the appellant is not liable to pay any amount as it is only on the account of the defect in the meter that the meter reading has jumped but it is not due to the lapse on the part of the complainant. Hence the appellant is entitled for the amount already paid by way of adjustment in the future bills he is not liable to pay any further amount to the opposite parties. The opposite parties are further directed not to harass the complainant and his family members. If any type of harassment is made that will be viewed very seriously. This order shows that there is lethargic and negligent attitude of the opposite parties. The opposite parties at the first instance have not given the test report of the meter and when the complainant demanded for the test reports, the opposite parties have dodged that the test reports are not available with them at present. Inspite of the test reports received by the opposite parties, they have not taken any action and issued a demand notice as per the old meter reading against the complainant and demanded for payment which has caused lot of inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant and as the complainant failed to pay as per the demand notice the opposite parties have disconnected the service connection. Ultimately the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- in order to get reconnection of his service as electricity is day-today necessity for any one. This shows the negligent attitude of the opposite parties in not rectifying the excess bill amount and demanding the complainant to pay as per the demand notice. All these clearly establish that there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which they are liable and even after receiving Vidyut Ombudsman order, the opposite parties have failed to take necessary action in this regard. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation towards deficiency of service and towards loss of reputation and mental agony to the complainant. Anyhow the loss of 15 days earned leave of the complainant cannot be taken into consideration. In view of the above observation, the opposite parties are directed to implement the order of the Vidyut Ombudsman immediately i.e. within 15 days from the date of this order. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of reputation and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
19. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of reputation and mental agony and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complainant and also implement the order of Vidyut Ombudsman within 15 days from the date of this order; failing which interest shall be paid @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization. And further direct the concerned officials to take necessary action for not conceding their own Ombudsman order dt.02-06-2012 immediately.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 23rd day of June, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of order vide C.G.No.ATP-165/dt.03-02-2012/Anantapur Circle
Dt.16-03-2012 issued by Forum for Redressal of Grievances of Consumers,
APCPDCL, Hyderabad.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of letter dt.02-06-2012 issued by Vidyut Ombudsman,
Hyderabad.
Ex.A3 - Original Electricity Receipt for Rs.4,000/- issued by Electricity Department.
Ex.A4 - Original Salary Certificate relating to the complainant issued by SouthWest
Railway, Bangalore Division.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Photo copy of L.T.Meter examination test report issued by opposite parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
