State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.C. D. V. Rao, M.D., F.R.C.S., .Medak ... vs Dee, Operation, Apcpdcl, Jogipet, ... on 5 March, 2012
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 266/2009 against CC 2/2007 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy Between : Dr.C. D. V. Rao, M.D., F.R.C.S., S/o Sri Laxmkipathi, aged about 50 yrs, Occu: Medical Practitioner, R/o H.No.1-6-109, Raipally Road, Narayankhed, Medak District. Appellant/Complainant And 1. The Divisional Electrical Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Jogipet, Andol : Mandal Medak District. 2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, APCPDCL, Narayankhed, Medak District. 3. The AAO/ERO Operation, APCPDCL, Jogipet, Andol : Mandal, Medak District. Respondents/Opposite parties. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr G. Rajesham Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. P. Ganeswar Rao for R1 to R3. Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Monday, the Fifth Day of March, Two Thousand Twelve Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 08.09.2008 in CC 2/2007 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under :
The complainant is a Medical practitioner he was having electrical Service Connection bearing SC.NO 762 under category NO. ll of Narayankhed and paying the electrical bills regularly. He paid Rs. 13,667/-upto 12.9.1996 and thereafter the respondents made wrong calculations and issued false bills for Rs 19,324/- therefore he has not paid the bill. The respondent without verifying his request disconnected the power to SC.NO.762 on 24.12.1997 without giving any notice and in that connection the complainant filed a complaint in CC,NO.11/98 before this District Forum and after enquiry this Forum allowed the complaint directing the respondents to restore the power supply and to issue fresh bill with Rs. 60,000/- towards damages and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost. It is further submitted that aggrieved by the side order the opposite parties preferred an appeal in F,A,No. 454/2000 before this Commission and that the appeal was allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum including the award of Rs. 60,000/- and to continue the direction with regard to restoration of power supply to SC.No.762 pending Disposal of dispute and to pay the bill regularly by him. It is further submitted that in spite of orders of this Commission, the opposite parties neither physically verified the meter readings and issued him any bill for consumption of power. The complaint approached the opposite parties several times and stated them that he will pay the bill in installments in the event of furnishing the correct consuming bills of SC.No.762 and they instructed the complaint to pay some amount and accordingly he paid Rs. 6,150/- vide bill Nos.253757,259274,58324 and 759902 respectively including the reconnection charges of Rs.150/-. Therefore the complainant approached the opposite parties several times with a request to issue correct bill, but they failed to do so. Suddenly the respondents without giving any notice disconnected the power supply to SC.No.762 and issue an attachment notice vide NO. DEE/JPT,dt.11.1.2007, for recovery of Rs. 77,508/- without mentioning the units consumed by him and the period of consumption and without showing the deduction of amount already paid by him. Due to disconnection of power supply the complainant is facing great inconvenience and hardship. He is a medical practitioner if the respondents are not restrained from attachment of property he will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss and hence he filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to restore the power supply to S. C. No. 762, to cancel the attachment notice No. Dee/JPT, dt. 11.1.2007, to furnish proper and correct reading of units consumed by him along with the bills and also to permit the complainant to pay the said corrected due amount in installment basis without any interruption of power supply to his clinic.
3. OP .1, 2 and 4 filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and disputing the claim and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
4. There is no Executive Engineer Post in A. P. Transco Ltd, as it is abolished. It is admitted that SC.No.762 was allotted to the complainant under category-ll on 31-3-1982 with 200 watts load and the complainant has paid Rs. 13,667/- upto 12.9.1996 and thereafter he did not pay regular instalments. It is stated that an amount of Rs.19,324/- under the C.C bill dated 01-701998 was rectified to Rs. 11,653/- and the same is referred to in the counter in CC 11/98 and as per the order of this Commission, the petitioner had not paid the rectified amount of Rs.11,656/- even after disposal of the appeal. As the complainant did not pay due arrears of CC bills his service connection was kept under disconnection list. It is further stated that whenever a consumer is enlisted in the disconnection list, he shall be issued minimum charged bill showing the arrears of CC bills. It is further stated that as per the ledger data statement the total accrued amount of CC bills is Rs.77,508/-. Therefore, they sent demand notice dt. 11.1.2007 for Rs.77,508/- to pay within 15 days, in default, the amount will be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act.
5. It is further submitted the details of payments to be made by the Complainant and he is bound to pay the said amount to the department.
From to Arrears Collections From to Balance 4/5/96 to 2/98 23,765/- Rs,4,935/- 4/96to2/98 18,340/- 5/2000 to 3/2005 Rs, 6,354/- 51,923/- 4/2005 to 12/2006 Rs, 8,000/- 77,508/- It is further stated that
the consumer did not avail the opportunity of waiver up to 6/2006 for payment of due arrears of CC bills amounts as per the policy of the A.P. Government. The chance of waiver of the surcharge amount also not available to the consumer now an therefore the complainant has to pay the entire due amount of Rs 77,508/- to the OP Department and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
The petition against the Respondent No.3 is dismissed as not pressed.
Both sides filed their evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B1 and Ex. B2 were marked for the opposite parties.
Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum, as per the majority opinion, dismissed the complaint with costs of Rs.2000/-.
Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested under law and set aside the impugned attachment notice dt. 11.1.2007 for recovery of Rs.77,508/- by the opposite parties and that it failed to see that the District Forum did not restore the power supply as per the directions of State Commission and that the District Forum failed to consider that the opposite parties have not physically verified the meter and issued the correct bill to the complainant and that the District Forum ought to have seen that the finding of the Male Member with regard to arrears of bill prior to 2007 over 3 years is barred by limitation as per Judgment, 1993 CP 38 (NC) and that the District Forum failed to see that the complainant has been regularly paying the bills regularly and also deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- as per the direction of this Commission and the order of the District Forum is against to the fact or on law and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail Now the point for consideration is whether the order in majority opinion of the District Forum is sustainable ?
The contention of the complainant there is no dispute that power supply in SC No. under category II at Narayankhed was given to the complainant by Electricity department of the OPs. According to the complainant he has paid consumption charges regularly without any default and that by 12.09.1996 he paid Rs.13,667/- and that subsequently OPs wrongly calculated the bill for Rs.19,324/- and therefore he did not pay the same towards consumption charges of the said service connection and that without heeding to the request of the complainant Ops department disconnected power supply to the said service connection 24.12.1997 and that he filed CD 11/98 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy to direct the OPs to restore power supply. Question of issuance of correct bill arises only after testing the meter for which the complainant did not pay any amount for testing the meter. The record discloses that the said complaint was allowed vide orders dt. 30.3.2000 directing the OPs to restore electricity power supply to the said service connection and to issue a fresh bill on correct findings after physical verification of the meter reading in the presence of the complainant. Further Rs.60,000/- damages was awarded to the complainant so also costs of Rs.1000/- . Aggrieved by the said orders Ops 2 to 4 preferred FA 554/2000 on the file of this Commission and vide orders dated 18.6.2003 the said appeal was allowed and impugned orders dt. 30.3.2000 was set aside. However, it was further ordered to continue restoration of power supply to the said service connection pending disposal of the dispute before the Appellate authority on condition of the complainant paying the regular bills issued by Ops and the payment of disputed bill amount will depend upon the award passed by the Appellate authority. The actual dispute between the parties pertains to the electricity consumption bill pertaining to the years 1997 and 1998 and they were considered by the District Forum and this Commission in the earlier appeal. There is an observation in the Appellate authority that the complainant did not pay the bimonlty bills from 1.9.1997 to 1.11.1998 and the State Commission observed that it is open to the complainant to file an appeal ( Department ) and the complainant instead of filing such an appeal of clearing the arrears again filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum with the set of facts Ex. A4 attachment notice was issued for payment of arrears Rs.77,508/-. In the said orders, this Commission also observed that a detailed enquiry is necessary to decide the issue. The complainant may either file an appeal in the appellate authority provided under Electricity Act or to approach a civil court for a detailed enquiry. In the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to decide the dispute treating it as a consumer dispute where summary procedure is contemplated and in a way we are also convinced to hold that the complaint is barred by principle of Resjudicate. The complainant contended that in Ex. A4 his name is incorrectly mentioned as CVS Rao and in fact his name is Dr. C. D. V. Rao discussing the said aspect basing on Ex. A1 to A3 and argument of the opposite parties it was held that it was a clerical mistake and does not go to the root of the matter. Finding of the Male member of the District Forum with regard to arrears of bills prior to 2007 is barred by time has also to be decided basing on the evidence to be produced and the decisions if any in the said context. Whether the hospital of the complainant comes under commercial category or domestic category decided depending on circulars and GO etc of the Electricity Department. For verification of the meter to decide whether requisite has to be paid by the complainant and there is no dependable evidence from his side that he paid such an amount so that we can find fault with OPs in not verifying the meter to assess the back billing aspect also a lot of exercise has to be done by the Department and therefore it would be reasonable for the complainant to approach Departmentally by filing necessary representation or appeal or the Civil Suit but it is not possible for the Consumer Forum to decide the said aspects. The President and Lady Members of the District Forum have rightly came to the conclusion in dismissing the complaint. However, in the circumstances of the case, it was not desirable to impose costs of Rs.2000/- on the complainant to direct him to pay the same to the opposite parties and that the said portion is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed only setting aside the order of the District Forum directing the complainant to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the opposite parties. However, the order of dismissal of the complaint is sustained and the complainant is at liberty to pursue remedy in appropriate Forum or the Court and in such an event he is entitled for benefit U/s.14 of Indian Limitation Act for exclusion of time spent in prosecuting the case in District Consumer Forum and this Commission.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 05.03.2012.