FA 128/2007 against CC No. 232/2005 on the file of the
District Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada
Between:

Doma Seetha, W/o late Subba Rao

Hindu, aged about years, Occ; Housewife

R/o D.No.57-7-7&8, near Chinna Market

Karalla Academy, Jagannaickur,

Kakinada, East Godavari District … Appellant/Complainant
And
1. The Superintending Engineer,

Eastern Power Distribution Co., Limited

Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

2. The Assistant Engineer

Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd

D-5 Section, Jagannaickpur

Kakinada, East Godavari District.



3. The Assistant Accounts officer

Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd

Opp. Power House, Ramaraopet,

Kakinada, East Godavari District … Respondents/Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Kishore Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. O. Manohar Reddy.


CORAM :


Sri Syed Abdullah …… Hon’ble Member

And

Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao…… Hon’ble member


Tuesday, the Nineteenth Day of January, Two Thousand Ten


Oral order : ( as per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )

Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.12.2006 in CC 232/2005 by the District Forum, East Godavari at Kakinada this appeal is filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing that the order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.



The facts of the case are that in respect of the house bearing No. 57-7-7&8, the complainant had taken electric connection no. E 3261 during the year 1975. The said electric connection was originally stands in the name of Appanna which could not be transferred in her name. She used to consume 150 units per month. She has been paying the charges regularly. While so, on 4.1.2005 she received a bill for Rs.8,328/- said to be the consumption charges for 4960 units. The complainant requested OPs to change the electrical meter. It was replaced with a new meter. On 4.5.2005. Thereafter she received a revised bill for Rs.6103/-. In that bill it is shown that 209 units was consumed for which Rs.363/- had to be paid and the balance of Rs.5740/- towards arrears. OP.2 failed to substantiate as to how the figure Rs.5040/- was arrived at. Under protest the said amount was paid. So far OPs have not taken steps to rectify the bill which was issued wrongly.



OP.1 filed its counter on behalf of OPs stating that the complainant failed to get the service transferred in her name till date. The bill amount of Rs.8328/- was arrived on an average consumption from September onwards. The meter was struck up for 1800 units which was issued to the consumer on 4.1.2005. However, on the recommendations of the Assistant Engineer, OP. 2, the bill amount was revised to Rs.5740/-. The average consumption has to be worked out on 150 units but the Board assessed 100 units per month. Complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed for.



During the enquiry the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A9 and the OP filed Ex B1 along with evidence affidavit.



The District Forum adjudicated on the ppoints of deficiency in service and the entitlement of the amount as claimed for.



The factual aspects and evidence on record was discussed in detail and the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the complainant failed to satisfy as to how the method adopted by Asst. Engineer for fixation of the short fallen units of electricity consumed for the period from 1/04 to 9/04 as worked out at 1700 units is either illegal or unreasonable consequently confirmed that the short fallen units of 1700 as worked out is correct and thereby held that the bill issued for Rs.5970/- is correct.



In case of wrong billing of the electrical charges, it is for the consumer to show how the consumption charges as worked in the impugned bill are wrong.



It is an undisputed fact that the meter was stuck up from 6.9.2004 itself and after noticing it, the complainant had informed it to the department in January, 2005. It is the duty of the consumer to bring it to the notice of the department as to the defect in the meter or when the meter reader comes for recording the readings. The department have fixed norms and rules to calculate average consumption of the unit for the period during which the meter did not function or stuck up. Thereby the department has worked out the average consumption of short fallen units from September, 2000 onwards till new meter was placed on 4.1.005. At first for short fallen units of 1800 units a bill for Rs.8,720/- was issued and thereafter it was revised by the Assistant Engineer reducing it to Rs.5040/- by calculating the average consumption at 100 units per month instead of 150 units. Ex B1 contains the details of the calculation and unless it is shown to be in correct the assertion made by the complainant that the revised bill for Rs.5790/- is incorrect which cannot be accepted at all. On consideration of the evidence we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits .



In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum and consequently CD 232/2005 is dismissed. But there is no order as to costs.