PYLA MALLIKHARJUNA RAO vs ASSTT. ENGINEER, OPERATION A.P.S.E. BOARD

AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of his complaint C.D. 519/94 by the District Forum, Kakinada, the complainant preferred this appeal.

THE complainant is having electric power service connection HSC 1306 since 1960. It is the case of the complainant that he has been consuming not more than 40 units per month. But the opposite parties issued a Bill No. 23493 dated 5.9.1993 demanding consumption charges for Rs. 3,212/- for three months from June, 1993 to August, 1993 and the units being consumed 2215 i.e. at the rate of 788 units per month. THE bill was handed over to the complainant on 21.9.1993, although the due date of payment was mentioned as 18.9.1993. But the complainant sent a letter through registered post on 29.9.1993 to the opposite parties which was returned on 7.10.1993 with an endorsement that the addressee was absent. THE power supply was disconnected on 9.11.1993 and the complainant could pay the amount of Rs. 3,205/- only on 29.3.1994 and the power was restored on payment. Alleging that the bill issued was excessive and due to disconnection of power supply the complainant suffered both financially and mentally, he sought a direction in the complaint to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 3,205/- with interest and other expenses, compensation and costs.

The opposite parties in their version stated that the statement of the complainant that his average consumption was 40 units per month is absolutely incorrect and gave the details of the units consumed for the months from December, 1990 upto April, 1992 showing that the complainant consumed on an average about 137 units per month. It was further stated that there is an increase in the consumption by the consumer and there is no fault in the meter and that after receipt of the notice from the District Forum, the opposite party made personal inspection and found that the meter was in good condition and the readings are being recorded correctly. So the consumer was directed to pay the amount and was also advised, to pay the challenge fee for testing the meter at MRT Laboratory, Rajahmundry in his presence in order to show that the meter is not at fault. The complainant did not pay the amount and did not get the meter tested till today. As there was no defect in the meter, and as the bill was issued according to the consumption in the meter, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

NO oral evidence was adduced by both the parties. On behalf of the complainant Exs. A-1 to A-10 were marked and on behalf of the opposite parties Ex. B-1 was marked. The District Forum held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It further found that in view of the figures given by the opposite parties with regard to consumption of power in the year 1990-91 and 1991-92 the allegation of the complainant that his consumption never exceeded 40 units per month is certainly a lie. It further observed that the connected load is 475 watts and it is impossible to believe that the consumption was only 40 units per month. It might be that due to change in the method of collecting current consumption charges from time to time because of the slab system, to bi-monthly reading system, but that cannot be a ground for holding that the consumption is excessive unless the complainant is able to show that there is defect in the meter.

THE District Forum further observed that in the counter, it was clearly mentioned that the complainant was asked to pay the challenge fee for testing the meter, which the complainant did not do so and that unless and until the meter is found to be defective it cannot be said that there is any excess billing. It also found that there is a vast difference between the list furnished by the complainant and provided by the opposite parties. It, therefore, found that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. In the appeal preferred by the complainant, it is submitted that the consumption recorded for which the bill was issued is excessive as his average consumption was only 40 units per month. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that his average consumption was only 40 units per month. Even as on today, it is not the case of the complainant that he paid necessary fee for testing the meter in his presence at MRT Laboratory at Rajahmundry. This assumes importance that when the opposite parties in their counter stated that they asked the complainant to pay the requisite fee and get the meter tested, the complainant could not do so. Thus there is no evidence on record to show that the meter is defective. It is next submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that a bill for Rs. 3,205/- was handed over to the complainant on 21.9.1993 whereas the last date for payment of the same was on 18.9.1993 and on account of this irregularity and consequent disconnection of power supply for non-payment of the bill on 9.11.1993 the complainant suffered inconvenience during the period from 9.11.1993 to 29.3.1994 for which he is entitled for payment of compensation. We do not see any force in the aforesaid contention. Even assuming that the bill was handed over to the complainant on 21.9.1993 fixing last date for payment of the bill amount is 18.9.1993, still the complainant has sufficient opportunity to make a representation and to pay the bill. In fact according to the complainant he made a representation on 29.9.1993 by registered post which was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was absent. The service connection was disconnected only on 9.11.1993. There is nothing prevented the complainant from paying the bill between 21.9.1993 and 9.11.1993 and the complainant in fact paid the bill much later i.e. on 29.3.1994. It therefore, cannot be said that the disconnection was on account of the circumstance that the complainant did not have sufficient opportunity to pay the bill amount.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the Punjab State Electricity Board v. Mohinder Singh, III (1994) CPJ 16 (NC)=1994 (2) CPR 660 and contended that there is deficiency of service as disconnection itself is illegal. In the said case, it was held by the National Commission that the opposite party having agreed to supply to the complainant the electricity to his tube-well for agricultural purpose at agricultural power rates but charged special power rate in excess of agricultural power rates, and they supplied to the similarly situated persons the power at agricultural power rates, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in demanding the payment from the complainant at special power rates.

IN the instant case, it is not the case of the complainant that the power is being billed under a wrong head contrary to the terms of the agreement. On the other hand the District Forum observed that the contracted load was 475 watts and it is not possible to believe that the consumption was only 40 units per month. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits.

In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.