D.V.LAKSHMINARAYANA vs DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

THIS appeal arises out of an order dated February 14,1989 in the Consumer Dispute No. 4 of 1988 on the file of the District Forum, Guntur.

THE appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum. He has been running an electrical repairshop ina portion of the house No. 4/14, Brodipet, Guntur let out by Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao for more than ten years. THE shop was provided with electricity service connection bearing No. 32184 in the year 1983 in the name of the landlord Sri Surya Ramachandra Rao. THE appellant herein has been availing the service connection with the approval of the landlord, Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao ever since the connection was provided and has been paying the charges for the electricity consumed by him. A slab card was supplied in respect of the said service connection in the year 1983. THE slab amount was Rs. 30/- per month. THE appellant had paid the slab amount regularly up to July 1984 when the period fixed under the slab card had expired. Due to the agitation by a section of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, fresh slab cards were not issued to the consumers during the period April to December 1984. Due to the failure on the part of the Electricity Board to issue a fresh slab card to the appellant, he could not pay the electricity charges from August 1984. It is the specific case of the appellant that though he had approached the authorities several times to obtain a fresh card as well as to ascertain the amount payable by him, he has neither issued a fresh slab card nor the particulars of the amount payable by him were furnished. That has been due to the work to rule agitation of the employees of the Electricity Board during the relevant period.

The version of the Electricity Board was that after the agitation was called off by the employees and normal work was restored, a counter was opened at the Revenue Office of the Board, Guntur in February 1985 and fresh slab cards were issued to the consumers. More than a year after the agitatin was called off, the service connection No. 32184 was disconnected in March 1986 without issuing a bill or any notice either to the appellant herein or to the owner of the house, Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao. According to the appellant, all his efforts to obtain, from the Revenue Office of the Board, Guntur, the details of dues payable to the Board proved futile and ultimately when he approached the Assistant Accounts Officer, he was informed that if he pays Rs. 1545.40 ps. the service connection to his shop would be restored. The petitioner paid that amount on September 26,1987 and the service connection was restored to his shop.

THE amount of Rs. 1545.40 ps. paid by the appellant comprises of Rs. 72/- towards arrears payable up to July 1985, Rs. 216/- towards arrears payable from August 1985 to July 1986 at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month, Rs. 216/- towards arrears payable from August 1986 to July 1987, Rs. 30/- being the slab amount for August 1987, Rs. 991.40 ps. towards surcharge from January 1985 to August 1987 and Rs. 20/- towards re-connection fees. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, Guntur stating that the non-payment of electricity charges during the relevant period was solely due to the failure on the part of the respondents to issue a fresh slab card in August, 1984 and furnish particulars of the dues payable by him. It was further stated that the appellant was deprived of his livelihood by reason of the dis-connection of the service to his shop without issuing any notice and without furnishing a bill containing particulars of the dues payable by him.

THE respondents herein filed a counter before the District Forum admitting that fresh slab cards and disconnection orders for non-payment of electricity bills were not issued during the period April 1984 to Dec., 1984 due to the agitation of the employees of the Electricity Board. It was, however, pleaded that it was due to the employees'' agitation only that the appellant had an opportunity to enjoy the electricity for 19 months without paying monthly bills. According to them, Sri K. Surya Ramchandra Rao in whose name, the service connection No. 32184 was provided is the registered consumer and as he had failed to obtain a fresh slab card in February 1985 from the counter opened for that purpose and as he had stopped payment of the slab amount from August 1984 onwards, the disconnection in service in March 1986 was legal and valid. According to them, the levy of the surchage was quite in accordance with the terms and conditions of supply. The respondents raised an objection before the District Forum that the service connection bearing No. 32184 having been provided in the name of Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao, the appellant herein, who was not a registered consumer of the Electricity Board had no locus-standi to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that objection was upheld by the District Forum. It has to be considered whether that objection is valid in view of the provisions of the Act. It is no doubt true that the service connection bearing No. 32184 was provided in the name of Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao. There is no dispute that the shop is located in a portion of the house of Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao and the appellant is his tenant As per sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, "Consumer" means any person who hires any services for a consideration and includes any beneficiary of such services when such services are availed of by the beneficiary with the approval of die person who has hired the services for consideration. The word "Service" has been defined under Clause (O) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, as service of any description which is made available to potential users including the provision of facilities in connection with the supply of electrical energy. Though Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao had hired the service of providing supply of electrical energy, that service had in fact been availed of by the appellant herein with the approval of Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao. There is no dispute that the appellant alone has been paying the electricity charges all through. From the provisions of the Act, it is evident that the Parliament intended to provide protection under the Act not only to the person who had hired the service but also the person who availed the service with the approval of person who had hired the services. Therefore, the appellant is a consumer within the meaning of the Act.

THE next question that arises for consideration is whether the collection of Rs. 1545.40 ps. by the Electricity Board from the appellant is valid and justified. THE appellant paid the electricity charges at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month up to July 1984. According to the Electricity Board, the appellant had been consuming electrical energy of the value of'' Rs. 18/- per month. THE arrears payable up to July 1985 after making adjustment of the excess amount paid by the appellant up to July 1984 were shown to be Rs. 72/-. THE arrears payable for the period from August 1985 to July 1987 at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month were shown to be Rs. 432/-. THE slab amount of Rs. 30/- for the month of August 1987 and reconnection fees of Rs. 20/- were added. Thus, the amount payable by the appellant comes to Rs. 554/-. As per the terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy formulated by the Electricity Board, a consumer is liable to pay electricity charges every month whether he avails the service or not till it was dismantled. THErefore, the appellant is liable to pay the charges for the period from August 1984 to August 1987 including the reconnection fees of Rs. 20/-. Thus, the amount of Rs. 554/- has to be paid by the appellant. However, it is urged by the appellant that the collection of Rs. 991.40 ps. by way of surcharge is illegal and unjustified. THEre is no dispute that the appellant had paid the slab amount regularly every month up to July 1984 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem. THE slab period expired by July, 1984. THE respondents admitted that fresh slab cards were not issued during the period April 1984 to December 1984 due to the agitation of the employees of the Electricity Board. THE appellant had addressed a letter to the Editor, Indian Express and it was published in the columns of that daily newspaper dated January 13,1988. In that letter it was stated that the appellant had approached the authorities several times to obtain a fresh slab card as well as to know the amount payable by him and that the authorities did not either issue a fresh card or furnish the particulars of the dues payable by him. THE Divisional Electrical Engineer, who is the first respondent herein issued a clarification on behalf of the Electricity Board to the allegations made by the appellant herein and that clarification was published in the Indian Express dated March 16,1988. In that clarification, the Divisional Electrical Engineer did not deny that the appellant had approached the authorities for the issue of a fresh slab card and for furnishing particulars of dues payable by him However, the stand taken in that clarification was that the Board was not bound to make any correspondence with the persons other than the registered consumers and as per the records, the registered consumer in the instant case was one by name Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao and therefore the appellant herein had nothing to do with the service connection bearing No. 32184. When the respondents admittedly failed to perform their part of the duty to issue a fresh slab card in August 1984, are they entitled to collect surcharge? However, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that in February 1985 after the agitation of the employees was called off, counters were opened for issue of fresh slab cards to the consumers and the appellant did not avail the opportunity to obtain a fresh slab card and pay the amount from February 1985. When the respondents have taken a clear and categorical stand that they have nothing to do with the appellant as he was not a registered consumer and therefore, they need not enter into any correspondence with him, it can reasonably be inferred that the appellant could not have been issued a fresh slab card in February 1985. If the agitation of the employees was called off in January 1985, there is no reason why the respondents kept quiet till March 1986 without taking the meter reading and without issuing a bill for the entire year. Even as per the revised terms and conditions meter reading has to be taken once in every four months.

A duty is imposed on the Board to issue a bill for the entire year. The conduct of the respondents and their subordinates in not taking the meter reading for more than a year and half from August 1984 and not issuing a bill for the entire year reveals the indifference on their part in performing the functions and total neglect of their duties. They did not give any notice either to the appellant or to Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao, probably taking shelter under Clause 32 : 3 of the terms and conditions of supply, ignoring Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act nor had they furnished the particulars to them as the dues payable in respect of the said service connection, before ordering disconnection in March 1986. However, the respondents blame the appellant for non-payment of dues for a period of about 18 months after disconnection. In normal circumstances, the appellant who has been eking out his livelihood by running a small electrical repair shop would not have kept quiet for about 18 months without seeking restoration of power supply. The case of the appellant was that all his efforts to obtain details of dues from the Revenue Office of the Board, Guntur provided futile and when the Assistant Accounts Officer informed him about the dues payable by him, he had paid the amount in Sept. 1987. He had paid not only Rs. 554/- towards arrears, but also paid Rs. 991.40 ps. towards surcharge for belated payment. It shows how much interested he was in getting restoration of power supply to his shop.

It is of paramount importance that the employees of the Electricity Board shall perform their functions and discharge their duties fairly and properly in accordance with law. In case of dereliction of duty on their part, the Board is not justified in collecting surcharge from a consumer for belated payment of the charges. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced that the delay in payment of the charges by the appellant is mainly due to the failure on the part of the respondents to issue a fresh slab card in time and furnish particulars to the appellant of the dues payable by him. In such circumstances, the respondents are not entitled to collect surcharge of Rs. 991.40 ps. from the appellant. Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund the sum of Rs. 991.40 ps. collected from the appellant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of collection till the date of refund. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed.