C. SHEKAR REDDY vs A.P.S.E.B. (now A.P. Transco)SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (OPERATION)

THE complainant in C.D. 83/1997 on the file of the District Forum, Warangal is the appellant.

HIS case is that he is having an Electricity Service connection to his ''Ruller'' since 11 years. In fact, he wanted to opt for 7.5 HP load but on the suggestion of the opposite parties, he applied for 15 H.P. Hence, in January, 1990, he applied for reduction of the load from 15 HP to 7.5 HP. The third opposite party inspected the premises and found that the complainant was running only 7.5 HP Motor and promised to carry out the report within three months but curiously supply was disconnected. When the complainant made a representation, power was restored on payment of Rs. 4,547/- on 19.2.1992, but, it was again disconnected on 30.7.1993 on the ground that he failed to make payment for the months of June and July, 1993. Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed their written version which was adopted by the second opposite party, wherein it is admitted that the complainant made an application for reduction of load. It is further asserted that the load was reduced with effect from 30.9.1990 but the letter was issued on 3.2.1995. It is also pleaded that the complaint is barred by limitation.

The complainant, besides filing his affidavit, filed Ex. A1 to Ex. A-4. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence.

THE District Forum, on the basis of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the appeal. We shall take up the issue of limitation. It is not in dispute that the complainant submitted an application with request to reduce the load from 15 HP to 7.5 HP in June, 1990 and the load was reduced on 30.8.1990. The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant committed default in payment of the bills for the months of June and July, 1993 which resulted in disconnection of supply.

UNDER Ex. A-6, which is the Test Report, furnished by the Additional Assistant Engineer/Assistant Divisional Engineer on 16.12.1994, it is stated that the load in respect of S.C. No. 3910/107 has been reduced from 10 HP to 7.5 HP w.e.f. July, 1992. UNDER Ex. A-11 dated 3.2.1995 a letter addressed by the Assistant Accounts Officer to the complainant, it is stated that the load was reduced from 15 HP to 7.5 HP in respect of S.C. No. 3910/107, Nyalapogula w.e.f. 30.9.1990. The last letter which gives cause of action to the complainant is 3.2.1995 and if he has filed the complaint within two years from this letter or giving an allowance of one week for transit of this letter, the complaint should have been filed on 10.2.1997 but it was filed on 31.3.1997. Therefore, the District Forum, held that the complaint is barred by time. However, the Superintending Engineer, Oparation Circle, Warangal, sent a letter No. SS/G/WGL/GRC/WGL/D.No.666/1996 dated 9.6.1996 stating that the appeal of the complainant under Ref. No. 1 has already been considered favourably. Due to non-concluding of LT agreement by him only the excess payment of Rs. 1,612/- + Rs. 1,063/- could not be adjusted to his account. It is further stated that his service was ordered for disconnection from April, 1992 and at present the amount of Rs. 10,613/- is outstanding by the end of March, 1996. From this, it is clear that the issue is alive by the date of this letter dated 9.5.1996 and this letter certainly gives part of cause of action for filing the complaint. Therefore, the order of the District Forum holding that the complaint was not filed within two years from the date of cause of action cannot be upheld. As already seen from the correspondence prevaricating statements are given. Though the complainant had applied for reduction of load in January, 1990 after lapse of 5 years it is stated by different proceedings by the opposite parties that the load was reduced w.e.f. 30.9.1990 and w.e.f. July, 1992. For this discrepancy, there is no explanation forthcoming from the opposite parties. Further, it is unimaginable why the opposite parties took so much time and why they failed to comply with the request of the complainant within the reasonable period of three to four months. The District Forum also rightly expressed its sorrow and anguish at such a state of affairs since the opposite parties took five years to send the letter dated 16.12.1994 under Ex. A-6 or dated 3.2.1995 under Ex. A-11 to inform the complainant that the load is reduced. This certainly amounts to deficiency in service. For this deficiency we are of the opinion that the complainant must be compensated for the agony suffered. Therefore, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and loss. The opposite parties are directed either to pay this amount or adjust the same against arrears or in future bills. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside with the above directions. Appeal allowed.