ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER,ELECTRICAL OPERATION vs G.PURUSHOTHAM RAO

FA. IA. No. 1571/1999 is an application for condoning the delay of 8 days in the opposite party in C.D. No. 111/1996 on the file of Warangal District Forum presenting the appeal FA. SR. No. 3239/1999 questioning the order of that District Forum therein dated 6.5.1999. The order was despatched on 17.9.1999 and was received on 21.9.1999 by the petitioner/appellant as seen from the endorsement on the certified free copy of the order of the District Forum filed with the appeal papers. The last date for presenting the appeal, therefore, was 21.10.1999. The appeal was presented on 29.10.1999. The reason for the delay in presenting the appeal was stated in the affidavit in support of the application for condoning the delay as follows : "It is submitted that after receiving the order on 21.9.1999 from the Consumer Forum, Warangal, we approached the Board Advocate to give the legal opinion. After perusing the judgment, Advocate advised to file appeal before the A.P. State Commission. As per the opinion of the Advocate note circulated in the office to obtain permission from the higher authority to file the appeal. The officer concerned granted permission to file appeal. Based on the opinion of the Advocate, we approached the Standing Counsel at Hyderabad, to prefer the appeal and hand-over the bundle to the Standing Counsel alongwith the other material which are required for the purpose of appeal."

We do not find sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay.

IN the result F.A. I.A. No. 1571/1999 is dismissed and consequently the appeal FA. SR. No. 3239/1999 is rejected. In A.O., Telecom District Manager v. Sheela H.N. Gaunekar, I (1996) CPJ 49 (NC), the National Commission refused to condone a delay of 9 days in presenting the appeal and examined the order of the State Commission in order to ascertain whether the order of the State Commission was vitiated by any illegalities or irregularities with a view to find out whether it merited intervention in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the Act'' for short). We, therefore, examine the order of the District Forum to satisfy ourselves about its legality and regularity with a view to find out whether it requires intervention in exercise of our suo motu revisional powers under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. We have the record of the District Forum also before us. We find that the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by any illegalities or material irregularities.

The case of the complainant was that he was receiving energy to his Huller in Venkatagiri village of Kesamudram Revenue Mandal in Warangal District under Service Connection No. 5022. For non-payment of arrears of Rs. 2,795/- the supply of energy to his Huller was disconnected on 23.7.1994 and after he paid the arrears on 17.1.1995 together with reconnection and other charges, supply of energy was restored on 17.1.1995. Thereafter the complainant received a bill dated 7.3.1995 for Rs. 10,392/- showing the "present reading" as 17060 and the previous reading as 12742. The complainant protested stating that in March, 1995 the meter reading was not 17060 and brought that fact to the notice of the opposite party in the C.D. The complainant stated in his complaint as follows : "The opposite party officials had come to village on 11.6.1995 and personally observed the meter reading and made an endorsement on the bill that the meter reading was only 14176 and thus informed the complainant that the bills will be properly checked and rectified and a new bill will be issued for the payment. Accordingly the complainant was regularly approaching the opposite party officials for issuing the fresh bill. The opposite party had not taken any steps to rectify the bills. But on the other hand fresh computerised bills were issued on the complainant dated 4.7.1995, 4.11.1995, 4.12.1995, 1.4.1995, all these bills were issued without rectifying the mistake and keeping blank column under "Present Reading" surprisingly a provisional assessment notice dated 19.2.1996 was served on the complainant on 20.3.1996 stating that the electric connection was disconnected on 23.7.1994 and that the complainant was availing supply and the present reading is 14258 and malpractice was committed by the complainant and further the complainant was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 6,107.50 if the complainant is desirous to continuing for supply pending enquiry. The provisional assessment notice dated 19.2.1996 specifies that the service was disconnected on 23.7.1994 and that the complainant committed malpractice in availing the supply. This contention is erroneous and false and against the facts on record. It is true that the service was disconnected on 23.7.1994 and after disconnection the complainant had paid the bill on 17.1.1995 including the charges of reconnection. After paying the bill on 17.1.1995 the opposite party had given reconnection and later a bill dated 7.2.1995 was served for Rs. 1,198/-. And further the provisional assessment notice specifies that the present reading is 14258. Thus the contention in provisional assessment notice are against the facts and record. The opposite party had disconnected the supply in the month of February, 1996."

THE opposite party filed his version stating as follows : "4. THE complainant''s service was disconnected on 23.7.1994 for non-payment of C.C. charges of Rs. 2,795.00 with meter reading at 12242.00. THE complainant paid the arrears due on 17.1.1995 together with the re-connection charges vide P.R. No. 130777, dated 17.1.1995 and the service was re-connected on the same day. 5. Again the complainant stopped payment of consumption charges from 17.1.1995 to the Board. On 17.6.1995, the complainant was found due to pay Rs. 14,013.00 towards C.C. charges to the Board. THE complainant''s service was included in the defaulters list and therefore, the A.E., Kesamudram had dis-connected the service on 17.6.1995, with the meter reading at 14176 units. While things stood, the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam inspected the service on 17.1.1996 and he found the complainant pilferring the energy to the mill at the time of his inspection. THE meter reading on 17.1.1996 as recorded by the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam was at 15258 units. THE service was inspected in the presence of the representative of the complainant i.e., his own daughter by name Kumari G. Suvitha Devi and found the complainant pilferring the energy even after the service was dis-connected, by the A.E. on 17.6.1995. THEreafter the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam had drawn the inspection notes on 17.1.1996 in the presence of the said representative of the complainant and obtained her endorsement and signature on the inspection notes. THE A.D.E./D.P.E., disconnected the service on 17.1.1996 with meter reading at 15258 units. THEreafter he estimated the value of the energy pilferred at Rs. 12,365.00 and sent the inspection report to the concerned A.D.E., Operation, Mahabubabad, for issuing a provisional assessment of the energy pilferred as per the terms and conditions of the power supply to the consumer for payment. Accordingly, the A.D.E./Operation, Mahabubabad had issued the provisional assessment to the consumer and required him to pay Rs. 6,107.50 Ps. being half of the provisionally estimated amount of Rs. 12,365.00 and Rs. 150/- towards inspection charges and Rs. 30/- towards reconnection charges, if he wants to avail power. THE said notice was served on the consumer. THE complainant did not prefer any objections to the concerned authority in respect of the provisional assessment nor paid the amount. THE complainant has to pay Rs. 14,013.00 towards arrears of consumption charges upto 17.6.1995 and Rs. 6,107.50 Ps. + Rs. 150/- + Rs. 30/- = Rs. 6,287.50 Ps. towards provisionally estimated amount to the Board in all totalling to Rs. 20,300.50 Ps. THE complainant who has not paid the aforesaid amounts to the Board, has approached the Honourable Forum on the ground that he had not pilferred energy and that the bills issued by the Board were incorrect. THE Honourable Forum is very well aware that a consumer who commits theft of energy has no locus standi to approach the Honourable Forum for any relief on the ground of deficiency in service. THE complaint deserves to be dismissed.

Contents of para 2 of the complaint are true and correct. On being represented by the complainant, the A.E., Kesamudram inspected the meter found that the meter reading was 13060 units and not 17060 units as billed for the month of 2/1995 and thereafter he reported the matter to the A.A.O., G.R.C., Warangal on 13.7.1995 to reduce 4000 units in the bill for February, and serve a revised bill on the consumer for payment. Rest of the allegations in the said para are false and incorrect and they are hereby denied. The complainant is put to the strict proof.

WITH reference to the contents of paras 3 and 4 of the complaint, it is submitted that the complainant has suppressed the fact of his indulging in the theft of electrical energy to his Rice Mill, even after the disconnection of the supply of power on 17.6.1995 by the A.E., Kesamudram for non-payment of C.C. charges, in his complaint. As stated above, the service was inspected by the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam in the presence of his daughter by name Kumari Suvitha Devi and his said daughter also endorsed on inspection notes that the mill was provided with power and on testing by the heater, the meter disc was rotating in three phases. The A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam disconnected the service on 17.1.1996 on the pole with meter readings at 15258 units. The meter reading shown in the provisional assessment is erroneously typed as 14258 units instead of 15258 units and the same is evident from the inspection notes and as well as the inspection report of the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam. However, the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam while issuing the inspection notes and provisionally assessing the loss caused to the Board was erroneously assessed from 23.7.1994 as the date of disconnection of service instead of from 17.6.1995 the date on which it was later disconnected. In fact, as stated above, the complainant''s service was disconnected on 23.7.1994 for non-payment of charges but the complainant paid the C.C. charges due on 17.1.1995 and obtained re-connection on the same day. Again the complainant''s service was disconnected on 17.6.1995 for non-payment of the C.C. charges amounting to Rs. 14,013.00. Therefore, the A.D.E./D.P.E. Khammam ought to have assessed the loss caused to the Board from 17.6.1995 instead of from 23.7.1994. The opposite party is taking steps to bring the aforesaid mistake to the A.D.E./D.P.E., Khammam and for issuing a correct inspection report correcting the aforesaid mistake. It is utterly false to state that the supply to the complainant''s mill was disconnected in the month of February, 1996 as contended in the complaint." (Emphasis supplied) 6. From para 6 of the version extracted above it is seen that it was admitted that the complainant made a representation after he received the bill dated 7.3.1995 and that when the Assistant Engineer, Kesamudram inspected he found that the meter reading was 13060 units and not 17060 units as billed for the month of 2/1995. It was also further stated that he reported the matter to the A.A.O., G.R.C., Warangal on 13.7.1995 to reduce 4000 units in the bill for February and serve a revised bill on the consumer for payment. But the date when the A.E., Kesamudram inspected the meter was not stated. The complainant categorically stated that the officials came to the village on 11.6.1995 and observed that the meter reading as 14176 and that they informed him that the bills would be properly checked and rectified and a new bill would be issued. Thus according to the complainant the actual meter reading noticed when the officials of the A.P. State Electricity Board visited on 11.6.1995 was 14176 and not 17060 or 13060. This was supported by the fact that in the pilferage notice subsequently issued to the complainant, the meter reading was shown as 14258. The opposite party stated in his version that in the provisional assessment it was erroneously typed as 14258 instead of 15258 units. But nothing was produced before the District Forum to establish the same. It was also admitted that it was wrongly noted in the provisional assessment that the disconnection was effected on 23.7.1995 though admittedly reconnection was given on 17.1.1995. According to the opposite party the supply was disconnected for non-payment of the bill on 17.6.1995. There is no explanation for effecting the disconnection when, as admitted in the version of the opposite party in para 6 the A.E., Kesamudram inspected the meter and found the reading as only 13060 and reported the matter to the A.A.O. for issuing a revised bill. According to the complainant that visit was on 11.6.1995. That was not denied in the version. If that was so, then it behoves the opposite party to explain why disconnection was effected on 17.6.1995 as alleged by him. The complainant does not admit the disconnection on 17.6.1995. According to him the disconnection was effected only subsequently in 1996. According to him subsequent bills were also sent without effecting corrections. The opposite party did not state when they sent the revised bill after the A.E. found that the bill for February, 1995 showed excess 4000 units and that he reported the matter to A.A.O. on 13.7.1995. In the circumstances, on the very facts stated in the version, there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In view of these circumstances the story of pilferage trotled by them is hard to believe. It is obvious that the complainant was being harassed by the officials of the Electricity Board. In the circumstances we find that the order of the District Forum is not vitiated by illegalities on material irregularities. It is high time that the A.P. Transmission Corporation rectifies these irregularities and deficiencies.

Appeal dismissed.