ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, E.R.O., APSEB vs CHUNDI VENKATESHWARLU

THE Appellant in this case is the Assistant Accounts Officer in the Narasaraopet Electricity Revenue Office of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of convenience). THE Guntur District Forum ordered him to pay compensation of Rs. 500/- to the tenant of a house bearing No. 16-61 having electricity connection bearing No. 2983 in Chilakaluripet. Chundi Venkateswarlu, the tenant complained in C.D. 59/89 that he was being harassed by the employees of the Board working in Chilakaluripet and Narasaraopet offices of the Board. Chilakaluripet is in the administrative jurisdiction of Narasaraopet Electricity Revenue Office.

THE complainant in his complaint petition dated 14.7.1989 alleged that he was given wrong bills that though he was regularly paying his bills, power supply to his residence was illegally disconnected and that even after he paid the dues by M.O. as per the readings proovided by the Board, authorities power supply was not restored to his residence. He further alleged that he was subjected to mental agony, humiliation and inconvenience. In support of his complaint he got himself examined as P.W. 1 and produced various bills, receipts, notices and other connected documents. In his evidence, P.W. 1, the complainant narrated how he was made to go round the offices of the opposite party several times and now pressure was brought on him to withdraw the case from the Forum. Further in his written statement dated 21.8.1989 he alleged that after receiving notice from the Forum the opposite party brought pressure through the Municipal Commissioner, that the employees of the Board motivated the villagers to send a petition against him (the complainant who is a teacher) and that they compelled him to write a letter to the Forum withdrawing his case. The reliefs he sought in the complaint were restoration of electricity connection and compensation for the inconvenience and mental agony that he suffered and payment of expenses he incurred for his visits to the offices of the opposite party.

The version of the Assistant Accounts Officer before the Forum was that the complainant was not the registered consumer of the said service connection, that the service connection was in the name of one Edera Anjaneyulu and therefore, the complainant had no legal right to file the petition. As regards the material facts the opposite party stated that an amount of Rs. 24/- being monthly slab rate for January, 1988 was due from the customer having service connection 2983, namely, Edera Anjaneyulu and that the service was disconnected at the cut-out point on 28.3.1988 for default of payment. Earlier, as the meter got struck the Board authorities replaced it on 3.8.1987. The opposite party alleged that even after the service was disconnected in March, 1988, the complainant illegally consumed electricity and the Board authorities had to again disconnect the service in April, 1989 for the second time. He contended that the Board reserved the right to prosecute the complainant for illegal use of power supply. One Parandhamaiah, brother of Edera Anjaneyulu in whose name the service connection exists, paid all the dues together with penalty etc., on 16.8.1989 and the supply was restored on the same day.

THE opposite party in a representation submitted to the Forum on 2.12.1989 stated that the complainant informed the office of the Electricity Revenue Office by a letter dated 16.8.1989 that he proposed to withdraw the case. THE opposite party adduced no oral evidence before the Forum but produced certain documents in support of his contentions. The complainant in his averments before the Forum stated that he was forced to write a letter withdrawing his case and expressed his desire to pursue the matter. As the proceedings in the case reached its final stage, the complainant informed the Forum that he was forcibly vacated from the house by the owner motivated by the opposite party.

THE Forum after hearing both the parties and after thoroughly examining the various exhibits before it, held in its order dated 12.6.1990 that the complainant was entitled to file the complaint even though he was not a registered customer and that his letter to the Forum (Ex. B.3) requesting to drop the case was no bar for the complainant to pursue the complaint petition on merits. It ordered the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards compensation and costs, to the complainant. THE Forum also directed the Superintending Engineer of the Electricity Board at Guntur to initiate and conduct a departmental enquiry according to law against three employees of the Board. All the three employees are identified by the Forum. The learned Counsel for the Appellant (OP before the Forum) argued that the Forum failed to see that the Service Connection in question was not in the name of the complainant and therefore was not a consumer and had no right to file the complaint. He submitted that even on merits, the Board authorities were justified in disconnecting the service as the holder of the connection defaulted payment and illegally consumed electricity even after disconnection. Two more grounds for the appeal were that the Forum failed to take note of the fact that the complainant vacated the house on 24.4.1989 and gave a statement to that effect before the Forum and that the Forum was not right in pursuing the case even after the complainant gave a letter withdrawing his case and hence sought setting aside of the order of the Guntur District Forum. The thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Board before the Commission was on the issue of maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. Admittedly, the complainant was tenant in the house No. 16-61 having power supply connection number 2983. The person in whose name the connection stands, i.e. Edera Anjaneyulu did not appear on the scene either before the complaint was lodged or after. It was Parandhamaiah, the brother of Anjaneyulu and who was described by the complainant as the owner of the house, that paid the dues as claimed by the Board authorities. Till then, it was the complainant who was paying the bills as substantiated by the evidence placed before the Forum. The District Forum held that "having regard the nature of the definition of the word ''complaint'' given under Section 2(i)(c), (iii) and the definition of the word ''Consumer'' as defined under Section 2(i), (d), (ii) and having regard to the definition of the word ''service'' defined under Section 2(1)(o) which includes supply of electrical or other energy that the complaint petition was maintainable.

THE definition of the word ''consumer'' under Section 2(d)(ii) covers the beneficiary of any services hired. THE tenant of a house provided with electricity is undoubtedly a beneficiary of that service so long he was allowed to enjoy that facility. Notwithstanding the fact that the service connection was in the name of somebody other than the tenant and the owner of the house was yet another person, the complainant in the present case, was enjoying the facility of electricity supply which was paid for. THE tenant, therefore, is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We agree with the view of the Forum that there was considerable force in the contention of the complainant that some of the employees of the Board ''coerced'' induced and pressurised him to write a letter withdrawing the case from the Forum and that the letter was not a bar to pursue the complaint petition.

ON merits, we see no reason to find fault with the finding of the Forum, which took into consideration every bit of evidence made available to it, that the disconnection of electricity service number 2983 from 19.4.1989 till the date of its reconnection (on 16.8.1989) was wholly unjustified, arbitrary and illegal and the complainant was unnecessarily subjected to hardship and inconvenience for no fault of his. The whole argument of the opposite party before the Forum was built around the allegation that the slab rate amount for the month of January, 1989 was not paid. But the authorities of the Board could not effectively counter the assertion of the complainant that his pass book contained entry of Rs. 24.00 for the month of January, 1989 except stating that account books in the Electricity Revenue Office did not reflect the same. We are also not convinced that the service connection was disconnected for the second time. It appears that in March, 1988 the supply was not actually disconnected but ordered in the records for the purpose of using it as a Democle''s sword. The fact that ultimately the tenant was thrown out of the house where he lived for many years, eloquently speaks of the pressures that were brought to bear on him. Viewed in this background, we are unable to give any weight to the accusations made by the opposite party against the complainant. The District Forum felt that granting of Rs. 500.00 to the complainant towards compensation and costs would be ject and reasonable. We consider that this amount is only nominal, but in such matters the compensation could only be nominal and not substantial, because it is the Board that would be penalised for the wrongs committed by the individual employees. We refain from making any observation on the direction given by the Forum that the Superintending Engineer should initiate and conduct departmental enquiry against certain employees because the appellant did not tough that aspect in his arguments.

In the result the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. __________________