State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
A.P. Transco And Another Peddapally vs M/S. Sri Raja Rajeswara Modern Rice ... on 7 July, 2009
A BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD FA 932/2006 against C.D. 138/2000, Dist. Forum, Karimnagar Between: 1) The Divisional Engineer A.P. Transco, Peddapally 2) The Asst. Divisional Engineer A.P. Transco, Sulthanabad. *** Appellant/ O.Ps. And M/s. Sri Raja Rajeswara Modern Rice Mills Katnapally (Village) of Sulthanabad (M) Karimnagar Dist. Rep. by its Managing Partner Dannamanchi Agam Rao S/o. Rajeswara Rao. *** Respondent/ Complainant. Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Resps: M/s. P. Raja Sripathi Rao. HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
& SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER TUESDAY, THIS THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order: (Per Honble Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***** This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party electricity board against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to refund Rs.
40,029/- with interest or adjust the amount in future current consumption charges bills and further not to impose LPF charges in future bills besides costs of Rs. 500/-.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that it is a firm carrying on rice mill business and has electricity service connection under H.T. category from 1983-1993. While so, it converted the rice mill into Para Boiled Rice Mill in the year 1993 and as such the electricity supply was converted into HT category as it required 140 HP load. In the year 1999 the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a G.O. to treat the 150 HP as L.T. category. Since it was required to maintain 140 HP load it made a requisition to convert the service to L.T. category. Accordingly by proceedings in Dis. No. 1879 Dt. 22.7.1999 the board directed it to pay Rs. 40,500/- towards service line charges and development charges to convert the service connection into L.T. category. It paid the said amount and got it converted into L.T. category from 8/1999 onwards. Low Power Factor (LPF) charges are paid by HT category service connections only. Contrarily the electricity board issued bills amounting to Rs. 40,029/- towards LPF from 1.11.1999 to 1.6.2000. In order to avoid disconnection it has paid Rs. 40,500/-. Though it has made repeated representations but to no avail. The board has been charging LPF though not warranted, amounting to Rs. 40,029/-, and therefore sought for refund of the said amount and further direction not to impose LPF charges in future bills and compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental harassment and costs.
3) A.P. Transco the electricity board appellant resisted the case. While admitting that the service connection of the complainant was converted into 140 HP load under LT category-III (B) at its request, it has enhanced the connected load up to 150 HP under L.T. Category-III industrial and named as L.T. Category-II (B) Industrial as per B.P. MS. No. 62 (O&C) Dt. 28.12.1998. By invoking the said rule, HT service connection was converted into L.T. Category-III (b) on 15.8.1999. The billing will be made as per LT. Category-III Industrial tariff rates, however, all other rules like LPF charges, fuel charges will be charged on par with HT tariff. An amount of Rs. 40,500/- was paid towards service line charges and development charges.
It has nothing to do with LPF under L.T. category-III (b) (IV). This was explained to him. It was advised to put the healthy capacitors to improve the power factor in a better way leading to low power factor. LPF charges were levied as per B.P. Ms. No. 62. This complaint was filed in order to evade payment of bills which were issued to him and even payment of future bills. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9 marked, while the electricity board did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant was not liable to pay LPF charges as claimed by the electricity board solely on the ground that rules under B.P. Ms. No. 62 relied by the board was not filed observing The non-filing of the rules give rise to an adverse inference against the opposite parties. Therefore it allowed the complaint directing refund of the amount or adjust the same in future electricity consumption charges bills at that rate besides costs of Rs. 500/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the electricity board preferred this appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It did advert to rules which are statutory in nature. Without considering the rules whatsoever governing the complainants service connection, it ought not to have opined that the appellant board was wrong in issuing bills for LPF.
Therefore it prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that falls for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be dismissed for non-consideration of statutory rules and consequently the complaint is liable to be dismissed?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a partnership firm running a rice mill from 1983-1993. Originally in 19983-1993 it had 150 HP load under H.T. category. When it converted into Para Boiled Rice mill the electricity supply was converted to 140 HP. Later the Government treated the load up to 150 HP as LT category, accordingly the service connection was converted into LT category by proceedings Dis. No. 1879 Dt. 22. 7.1999 directing the complainant to pay Rs. 40,500/- towards service line charges and development charges. It is to convert the service connection to L.T. category. On payment of said amount it was converted to L.T. category from August, 1999. However, the board imposed LPF charges. The complainant alleges LPF charges would apply only to HT category and not to LT category.
9) The bills amounting to Rs. 40,029/- were issued to the complainant viz., Rs. 2,804.27 under bill Dt. 1.11.1999, Rs. 3,378.79 under bill Dt. 1.12.1999, Rs. 14,859/- under bill Dt. 1.5.2000 and Rs. 18,988.24 under bill Dt. 1.6.2000 towards LPF charges. The complainant alleges that since it was under LT category it was not liable to pay LPF charges. The appellant board alleges that by virtue of Circular B.P. Ms. No. 62 (O&C) Dt. 28. 12. 1998 LPF surcharge was applicable to HT consumers as well as LT consumers.
10) The appellant electricity board by way of notification B.P. Ms. No. 62 (Operation & Commercial) Dt. 28. 12. 1998 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette invoking the powers conferred by Sections 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 notified the tariffs.
Condition No. 1 reads as follows :
i) The maximum connected load under this category shall not exceed 150 HP including incidental lighting load of 5%. The contracted load shall be connected load required by the consumer as specified in the agreement as per sanction accorded for the service.
Condition No. iv applies to the instant case.
It reads as follows :
The LPF surcharge is applicable as in the case of HT consumers.
Condition No. 8 reads as follows :
Customer charges shall be as applicable for HT consumers.
Condition No. 9 reads as follows :
The condition No. 2 to 4 mentioned in the note under L.T. Category III (A) shall be applicable for Category- III(B) also, including FCA.
By invoking these rules the board has issued bills claiming the amount towards LPF charges. (emphasis ours)
11) The complainant has confused himself when he paid an amount of Rs. 40,500/-. It was towards service line charges and development charges for converting from HT to LT category. LPF charges will be levied both for HT as well as LT categories as per the circular stated above. In the bills Exs. A2 to A5 the said fact was mentioned.
12) To sum up, the complainant having opted for LT Category-III (B) liable to pay LPF charges as per notification B.P. Ms. No. 62 (O&C) Dt.
28.12.1998. The Dist. Forum could not have invoked an adverse inference for non-submission of the rules. It should have directed the board to submit the rules for its perusal. Since these rules are published in the official Gazette and statutory in nature, the Dist. Forum ought to have taken into cognizance. At any rate an adverse inference cannot be invoked for non-filing of the statutory rules. The electricity board by filing the circular rules framed under B.P. Ms. No. 62 (O&C) Dt. 28.12.1998 proved beyond any doubt that LPF charges have to be paid by LT Category-III(B) consumers. The complainant had to pay the amount being the demand is lawful. The complainant cannot avoid payment solely on the ground that he comes under LT category. The rules as well apply to LT category-III (B). The surcharge was for LPF.
The complainant has to pay the amount covered under the bills and also the amount that is assessed for future bills. He is not entitled to refund of the amount as directed by the Dist. Forum. Therefore, in the circumstances, the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be set-aside.
13) In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum, consequently the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case each party to bear its own costs.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) _________________________________ MEMBER Dt. 07. 07.
2009.