State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Asst. Engineer, Apcpdcl., ... vs Consumer Awareness Guidance And ... on 4 October, 2013
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD R.P.No.53/2013 against I.A.No.108/2013 in C.C.No.337/2013, District Forum-III,Hyderabad. Between: 1.The Asst. Engineer, APCPDCL., Santoshnagar, Hyderabad AP. 2. The Asst. Divisional Engineer VII, APCPDCL., Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad AP. 3. M/s.APCPDCL., Rep. by its Managing Director/Incharge, H.No.6-1-50, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad- 500 063. ...Petitioners/ Respondents/ Opp.parties And Consumer Awareness Guidance and Enlightment(Cage) Society, Rep. by its President, Mohsin Bin Hussain Ali Kasary, Having office at : H.No.18-7-198/A/249, Murad Mahal,Talabkatta, Hyderabad. ... Respondent/ Petitioner/ Complainant Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s. K.R.Koteswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Mohd.Muneeruddin. QUORUM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HONBLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member *** This Revision Petition is directed against the order dt.05.08.2013 in I.A.No.108/2013 in C.C.No.337/2013, passed by the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad.
The facts leading to this Revision Petition are as follows:
The respondent herein filed the Consumer Complaint no.337/2013 seeking direction to the opposite parties, to furnish the meter reader record for entire Circle ERO-VIII for judicial scrutiny and direct the opp.parties to issue revised bills for all those consumers of ERO-VIII, Hyderabad, for whom the bills were raised, without strictly following 30 days billing cycle and further direct them to pay Rs.1000/- to each such consumer towards mental pain and agony suffered solely due to negligent billing by the opp.parties and to direct the opposite parties to forthwith furnish the revised bill in respect of service connection no.R20606674 vide bill no.1178 dt.
16.5.2013 and pending such revision collect Rs.700/- against the said bill and direct the opp.parties not to repeat such unfair trade practice of raising bills for more than 30 days billing cycle in future and impose punitive damages of Rs.50,000/-
on the opp.parties for their negligent manner of rendering service u/s.14(d) of C.P. Act and direct the same to be paid to the complainant association to be utilised for the welfare of the consumers and award Rs.5000/- towards costs of the litigation.
Along with the above said complaint, the respondent also filed an application u/s.13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the petitioners/respondents to produce before the Forum all the meter readers records pertaining to ERO VIII, Santoshnagar for the period 01.01.2013 to 18.05.2013 in the interest of justice. The Revision Petitioners/ respondents herein filed their counter before the District Forum denying the material allegations made in the petition and contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint asking omnibus reliefs, as the complainant is neither consumer of the opposite party nor does the complainant society has any jural relationship with the opposite party. Hence on this ground the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
After hearing both parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum allowed the petition in I.A.No.108/2013 and ordered issue of summons to respondents requiring them to cause production of electricity bill meters readings relating to all the customers within the jurisdiction of ERO VIII, Santhoshnagar for the period from 01.01.2013 to 18.05.2013.
Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners preferred the above Revision, questioning the legality and validity of the order on several grounds as mentioned in the grounds of the revision.
During the course of hearing of the Revision Petition, this Commission directed the Revision Petitioners to produce the details, pertaining to meter reading or spot billing details relating to all the customers within the jurisdiction of ERO VIII, Santoshnagar, for the period from 1.1.2013 to 18.05.2013. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners filed the details pertaining to meter reading or spot billing details of Santhosh Nagar, ERO-VIII regarding one segment stating that in ERO VIII, the total number of consumer connections are 1,70,000 and this division is divided into 10 sections and each section consists of 10000 to 25000 services. For each section there are 15 to 20 area codes and each area code consists of 500 to 2000 services. Therefore, production of such bulk material details of 170000 service consumer details before this Commission/Forum is herculean task as the material available in soft copy as well as in hard copy are voluminous in nature. However, for verification of the billing system and its schedule, one segment details are produced for perusal.
During the course of hearing of the Revision Petition, this Commission further directed the counsel for the Revision Petitioners, to ascertain from the Revision Petitioners, whether it is possible to produce the billing details relating to one section. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners ascertained with the Revision Petitioners and produced the meter reading or spot billing details of I.S.Sadan , Pisalbanda of Santhosh Nagar Colony of ERO-VIII comprising of 250 services for perusal.
The Counsel for the respondent/complainant filed a memo stating that from the perusal of records of 250 consumers, which is filed before this Commission, by the Revision Petitioners, it is clear that it is just and necessary to call for only two line record of 1,70,000 consumers of ERO VIII for the month of April and May 2013, since it is apparent from the records that in these two months, they delayed billing cycle from 30 days to over 35 to 40 days directly shooting the bills of the innocent consumers and that the complainant association is ready to appoint any article clerk of any practicing Auditor/Chartered Accountant, to manually prepare the summary of excess billing of May, 2013 for 1,70,000 consumers and pay the expenses, either from Consumer Welfare Fund, if any, or from the fund of complainant society.
The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that the respondent/complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint asking omnibus reliefs, that the complainant is neither consumer of the opposite party nor does the complainant society has any jural relationship with the opposite party, that there is no cause of action for the complainant and some other grounds. In our considered, view all most all submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are touching the reliefs sought for in the main complaint and as such at this stage it is not desirable to consider those submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners on merits. However, all these contentions are to be considered at the time of disposal of the main complaint on evidence.
As contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, it may be herculean task to produce the voluminous material available in soft copy as well as in hard copy maintained by the Revision Petitioners. But in view of the contentions of both the parties and for the determination of the questions that arose in the complaint, the details pertaining to atleast 1000 consumers out of the 1,70,000 consumers of ERO-VIII for the month of May,2013 are very much necessary to decide the issues involved in the complaint. The respondent/complainant association is ready to appoint any Article Clerk or any practicing Auditor or Chartered Accountant to manually prepare the summary of excess billing for May,2013 for 1,70,000 consumers at its cost.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Revision Petition is allowed in part. The Revision Petitioners are directed to produce the details relating to meter reading or spot billing details of one thousand (1000) consumers of Santhosh Nagar Colony in ERO-VIII of any one section for the month of May,2013 only by 25.10.2013, if the Revision Petitioners failed to produce such details before the District Forum, the respondent/petitioner/complainant is at liberty to file a petition before the District Forum for appointment of any Article Clerk of any practicing Auditor/Chartered Accountant to prepare the summary of excess billing for May, 2013 for 170000 consumers at their cost, in the office of the Revision Petitioners and on such application, the District Forum may consider the same. The impugned order of the District Forum is modified accordingly. No order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.
INCHARGE PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.04.10.2013