State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Asst. Engineer, Tspcdcl vs T. Penchalaiah on 6 February, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. A/24/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 04/01/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/4/2012 of District Nalgonda) 1. 1. Asst. Engineer, TSPCDCL Town II, Nalgonda District. 2. 2. Account Officer, ERO Office, TSPCDL, Suryapet Town, 3. 3. Superintending Engineer, TSPCDCL, Near New Bus Stand, Nalgonda town and District. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. T. Penchalaiah S/o Narasaiah age 53 years, Occ. C.I of Police, CCS, Nalgonda, R/o H.No 2-1-170/2/4, Sri, Venkateswara Colony, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 06 Feb 2017 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. FA No. 24 OF 2016 AGAINST CC No.4 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM- NALGONDA Between : Asst. Engineer, TSPCDCL, Town -II, Nalgonda District. Accounts Officer, E.R.O., Office, TSPCDCL, Suryapet Town, Superintending Engineer, TSPCDCL, Near New Bus Stand, Nalgonda town and District. ....Appellants / Opposite parties AND : T. Penchalaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ: C.I. of Police, CCS, Nalgonda, R/o. H.No.2-1-170/2/4, Sri Venkateswara Colony, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District. ...Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite parties: Sri P.Ganeswar Rao and A.Jaya Raju Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Sri Vakkanti Narasimha Rao Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President & Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
, Monday, the Sixth day of February Two thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
*** This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum-Nalgonda (for short, "the District Forum") in C.C.no.4/2012. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the complainant in the said case. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed before the District Forum.
The case of the complainant, before the District Forum, is that she obtained power service connection from the Opposite Parties Department for his residence bearing no.2-1-170/2/4 [Ground Floor], Sri Venkateswara Colony, Suryapet Town, Nalgonda District, on 30.07.2000 and since then has been remitting the power bills promptly every month but to his utter surprise on 04.01.2012 he received a demand bill of huge sum of Rs.68,949/- for the month of December-2011 alleging that he consumed 11028 units of power, which is illegal. Despite his repeated requests the Opposite Parties did not rectify it. Therefore, on the premise of deficiency in service, he sought to declare the said bill as illegal and claimed damages of Rs.20,000/- with costs by way of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, before the District Forum.
The sole defence of the Opposite Parties, as set up in the complaint, is that as per the inspection conducted by a ADE [Operations] concerned, on the complaint of the complainant, it was found that one Sri Mr. Paul Raj, Lineman recorded the meter reading as 2250 though it was showing the meter reading as 13325 and that as such the bill in question was raised by department for the balance units of 11075 by placing the said Lineman under suspension. As per the Opposite Parties, there was no defect in the meter but to avoid payments the complainant has filed the complaint with baseless and imaginary allegations.
After due enquiry into the matter the learned District Forum passed the order, now under appeal, by directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.500/- and also to replace the meter at their cost to avoid incorrect reading in future by holding that the demand bill for the sum of Rs.68,949/- dated 04.01.2012 as arbitrary and incorrect and thereby prohibited the Opposite Parties from collecting the same. It was further directed that the Opposite Parties should undertake periodical inspection of all the meters in the District for every 3 months and detect frauds if any by the consumers and charge them accordingly.
Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Parties have preferred the present appeal on the grounds, interalia, that the District Forum did not consider the aspect of fraud committed by the complainant in collusion with the Lineman of the Department which was detected on the inspection of the ADE[Operations] on 27.12.2011. Further, the District Forum also ignored the aspect of revision of the demand notice by which the outstanding bill amount was reduced to Rs.36,676/-. Even otherwise the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Electricity Act, 2003. For these reasons, as per the Appellants / Opposite parties, the impugned order is illegal and liabile to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
Perused the impugned order, material evidence placed on record and the Written Arguments. Heard both the learned counsel.
Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal both on facts and under law and that as such liable to be set aside ?
Point: At the outset, it is to be seen that the present case is not that of a pilferage of power by the complainant but, even as per the Opposite Parties, it a case of defective Electricity Service Meter. The complainant being a consumer and the Opposite Parties being the service providers of the department, the complaint is certainly maintainable under section - 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the relief claimed by his is in addition to but not in derogation to any other remedies available to his under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Now coming to the facts of the case, as per the "Consumption, Billing, Collection and Arrears History" for the relevant period under section Ex. A3, the Units consumed by the complainant never exceeded 3 digits except the demand bill in question vide Ex.A1. As per this bill, the complainant allegedly consumed the units 11028 for the month of December-2011 in which the department has raised the demand for Rs.68,949/- This demand, when challenged by the complainant, the ADE [Operations] inspected the meter and thereafter by considering the requests of the complainant the outstanding demand was initially reduced to Rs.52,418/-, vide letter Ex.A4 and thereafter reduced further to Rs.36,676/- vide letter, Ex.A5 both dated 31.01.2012. Not satisfied with the said revision also, the complainant approached the District Forum.
It is the defence of the Opposite Parties that Sri Paul Raj, Lineman of the department recorded the meter reading wrongly as 2250 instead of the actual reading of 13325 and thereby favoured the complainant the units to the tune of 11075 for extraneous considerations and that he was habituated in doing so even for other consumers and that as such he was kept under suspension on 29.12.2011. Ex.B1 is a copy of said suspension order. But it is to be seen that no where the alleged collusion between the Complainant and the said Lineman has been noted in the said suspension order, as a ground to place him under suspension. Further, the Opposite Parties have filed a copy of revision of back billing under Ex.B2 and attempted to show that the actual meter reading was 13325 but not 2250 as recorded by the Lineman and that as such the bill was raised for the remaining units of 11075. But, it is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties did not choose to examine the ADE [Operations], APCPDCL, Suryapet Town to by way of filing his affidavit evidence to explain the said aspects. Thus, the defence by way of mere pleadings without proof cannot be accepted and acted upon.
The Electricity Board is bound to conduct periodical checks of the electricity meters of the consumers and maintain data of all the information associated with them with regard to their installation, details of testing, calibration, replacement of meters etc., as per the Regulation-14 of the Central Electricity Authority Regulations - 2006. But, in the present case no such record for the past 3 or 6 months has been made as a part of the record for perusal. This lapse on the part of the department is certainly fetal to their defence. Even otherwise the period of limitation is only of 6 months for claiming arrears of the bills under section - 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. In the present case the claim of Rs.68,949 dated 04.01.2012 under EX.A1 is beyond the period of 6 months when related to the revision of back billing under Ex.B2. Therefore, we hold that the same is barred by limitation.
We have given careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter in dispute with minute details and came to a conclusion which, in our considered opinion, is neither perverted nor erroneous but well reasoned with convincing findings thereon. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is erroneous or illegal both on facts and under law. In this view of the matter, we hold that the appeal is devoid of any merits and that as such the same is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the impugned order in toto. But in the peculiar circumstances without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt. 06 .02.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER