State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Apcpdcl And Another Hyderabad vs Sri Shyam Sundarlal Sanghi Hyderabad on 16 December, 2008
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:
HYDERABAD.
F.A.I.A.No.1018/2007 IN F.A.(SR).No.2058/2007 AGAINST
C.D.No.684/2004, DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD.
Between:
1. The Accounts Officer,
ERO-III
APCPDCL, South Circle,
Madina
Building, Hyderabad.
2. The Addl.Divisional
Engineer,
APCPDCL, South Circle,
Madina
Building, Hyderabad. Petitioners/Appellants
And
Sri Shyam Sundarlal Sanghi
(Died)
Rep. by his legal heir
Smt.Shakuntala
21-2-444, Mitti-Ka-sheer,
Charkaman, Hyderabad. ..Respondent/Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.O.Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent:
M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.
QUORUM:THE
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, LADY MEMBER.
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ORAL ORDER: (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President.) *** We have heard both the counsel on the delay excuse petition as well as merits of appeal.
The grievance of the complainant is that she was the owner of the premises having electricity connection No.3000074 and was paying the consumption charges without any default. However, she was also having another service connection bearing No.N.300139 and the Board was sending separate bills. In March, 2004, the Board has sent a combined bill by clubbing both the bills, whereby she would be forced to pay more towards the electric consumption charges.
The Board resisted the case alleging that Assistant Engineer inspected the premises of the complainant in the month of March, 2004 wherein he found that the meter N3-74 was switched off, however, the power supply was live and she has been drawing electricity through another meter. Both the service connections are situated in the same premises with different connection numbers and therefore as per Section 88 together with condition No.27.3 of terms and conditions of supply of Electricity, the Board in its discretion treated it as a single connection and accordingly issued bills. Therefore, it prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The complainant filed evidence affidavit besides Exs.A1 to A9. The District Forum after considering the evidence on record opined that earlier two bills have been issued separately and there was no reason as to why a single bill was issued making her to pay more than what she had to pay. The representation made by the complainant was not taken care of and therefore a direction was issued to split up the bill as were issued earlier and if there is any excess amount paid by the complainant, the same be adjusted in future bills together with costs of Rs.1,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the electricity Board, preferred this appeal contending that a single bill was issued by clubbing both the connections since they were empowered to club two or more connections situated within the single premises by virtue of the terms and conditions. Along with it an application under Section 15 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 410 days on the ground that there was delay in getting necessary sanctions from the authorities. The respondent opposed for condoning the delay on the ground that no reason whatsoever was mentioned as to why the enormous delay occurred and from whom the sanction had to be obtained.
At the outset, we may state that there is no dispute that earlier the complainant had two service connections and the Board was issuing bills separately. For the first time in the year, 2004, one bill was issued clubbing two connections by invoking condition No.3.5.3 of General Terms and Conditions of supply of Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, which reads as follows:
Not withstanding the above provisions, the Company reserves the right, where it is reasonably established, that the consumers of the same group or family or firm or company who are availing supply under different service connections situated within a single premises by splitting the units, the company may treat such multiple connections existing in the single premises as a single service connection and charge the total consumption of all the consumers at the appropriate tariffs applicable for a single service connection. Any officer authorized by the company shall issue notices to the concerned consumers asking them to furnish a single application for all such services and to pay required charges for merging the services into a single service.
A perusal of the above terms and conditions would undoubtedly show that before invoking this provision, necessarily a notice has to be served on the subscriber. There is no proof that the Board had issued such a notice before clubbing the connections. Since the Board did not comply with the condition, it cannot calculate the amount by treating as one connection. We do not see any merits in the submission made by the appellants in this regard.
Even otherwise the delay was enormous without giving any reasonable explanation. In fact, day today delay has to be explained. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal to consumer disputes. It follows that the delay cannot be allowed in a routine way, and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons supported by material. The discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the period allowed will not be exercised in a light and routine manner. We therefore do not see any ground much less sufficient grounds to condone delay of 410 days.
In the result F.A.I.A.No.1018/2007 fails and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently F.A.(SR).No.2058/2007 is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT.
LADY MEMBER.
Dated 16-12-2008.