Useful Information Customer Care Address Popular Judgments
FAQ Consumer Forum Reliance Karnataka Country Club Bajaj Allianz State Bank Of India
Court Fee Airtel Chandigarh Idea ICICI Lombord Andhra Bank
Where to file Complaint Vodafon Bengal Tata Indicom HDFC Standard Life HDFC Bank
Notice Sample Idea Uttarakhand Airtel IffcoTokio Icici Bank
First Appeal Consumer Forum BSNL Gujarat Reliance Metlife Punjab National Bank
Consumer Protection Act Nokia Rajasthan Vodafone SBI Life Insurance Bank Of India
RTI for Banks Micromax Assam Mobile Store Reliance General Insurance Canara Bank
Insurance Ombudsman Lava Uttar Pradesh MTNL New India Insurance Bank Of Baroda
Banking Ombudsman Karbonn Jharkhand Birla Sun Life National Insurance United India Insurance
How to start DND Sony Bihar LIC Oriental Insurance State Bank Mysore
Irctc TATA AIG India Bank


+ Submit Your Complaint
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: AP Transco

  1. #1
    adv.singh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,003

    Default AP Transco

    C.C.NO. 32 Of 2009
    Between:-
    Damaragidda Srinivasulu S/o D. Narayana, age: 70 years,

    Occ: Business (owner of Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries),

    R/o H.No.1-7-152/E2, New Gunj, Mahabubnagar. … Complainant

    And

    1. The Asst. Engineer, Town-II, AP Transco, Mahabubnagar,

    Near Old Power House, Mahabubnagar.

    2. The Asst. Divisional Officer, AP Transco, Mettugadda,

    Mahabubnagar

    3. Divisional Officer, AP Transco, Near Mettugadda,

    Mahabubnagar.

    4. Superintending Engineer, AP Transco,

    Near Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar.

    5. Electricity Revenue Officer, AP Transco,

    Mettugadda, Mahabubnagar. … Opposite Parties

    This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 6-1-2010, in the presence of Sri C. Rajender Kumar, Advocate, for the complainant and of Sri V. Manohar Reddy, Advocate, for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

    O R D E R

    (Sri P.Sridhara Rao, President)

    1. This is a complaint filed on behalf of the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of

    Rs.10, 480-65/- covered under the bill dt.8.1.2009 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., 21.1.2008 till the date of realization and so also to refund a sum of Rs.10,114-50/- covered under the bill dt.7.2.2009 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., 20.2.2009 till the date of realization and also to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and also costs of the complaint.



    2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that the complainant is the owner of Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries situated in land bearing Sy.No.91/AA, extent: Ac.01-02 guntas situated within the limits of Chinnadarpally village, Hanwada Mandal, Mahabubnagar district. The complainant is doing rice industry business since 2004 by obtaining power supply connection from the AP Transco. The opposite parties are the officers of the AP Transco. The complainant has obtained power supply of 75 HP for the rice industry. The opposite parties fixed a three phase meter bearing Service No.0175236109, Cat-3A, Ph-3. The complainant has started his rice industry in the year 2004 having motors of 75 HP and the same are running till this day without any variation. The complainant is paying the regular monthly electricity consumption charges to the opposite parties as per the bills issued by OP.1. As per previous bills the fixed demand charges were Rs.2775/-. But all of sudden the opposite parties issued bills dated 8.1.2009 and 7.2.2009 of electricity consumption of the complainant meter for Rs.49674-09ps., and Rs.32,983/- showing the fixed demand charges of Rs.13320.65ps., and Rs.12,889-50ps. Respectively. Usually the fixed demand charges is not more than Rs.2,775/- only. The complainant by seeing the said bills approached the opposite parties and requested for correction of the bill amount as in the bill the amount of fixed demand charges are mistakenly shown in excess. But the opposite parties did not consider the request of the complainant and on the other hand threatened if the total bill amount is not paid, the power supply will be disconnected. Thus the complainant has made a written representations dated 19.1.2009 and 16.2.2009 respectively to the opposite parties. Thus the complainant has paid the bill amounts under protest by way of D.Ds. of SBH, Main Branch, Mahabubnagar along with a letters of protest. Though the complainant has represented the mistake in writing and asked to correct the bill, there is no positive response from the opposite parties. As such being the consumer of the opposite parties, the complainant is compelled to file the present complainant. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief.



    3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the material allegations mentioned in the complaint and contended that the complainant has obtained power supply of 75 HP for his Samantha Srinivasa Rice Industries of Chinnadarpally village, Hanwada Mandal. The meter fixed to the said firm bears Service No.01752-36109, Cate-3A, Ph-3. But the maximum contracted load for the said firm is 75 HP. The fixed demand charges for the above said load up to 75 HP is Rs.2,775/-. If the demand or load of the consumption of electricity energy exceeds beyond 75 HP, the slab rate for the said load is changed and it comes under HT category I, at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA, that the complainant has consumed more than the fixed norms in the month of January, 2009 and February, 2009, and since the power consumed is more than the fixed norms, exceeds beyond 75 HP, the slab rate for the said load is changed and it comes under HT category-I, @ Rs.195/- per KVA and accordingly bills were issued depending upon the meter reading and the complainant has paid the said bill amounts in order to avoid disconnection as per rules for default in payment of electricity bills. Since the bills were correctly calculated depending upon the meter reading and consumption of electricity and the rate fixed as per the norms, the request of the complainant to revise the bill was rejected and it was confirmed. The opposite party has no personal grudge against the complainant to threaten him and the said allegation is false, incorrect and baseless, created for the purpose of this complaint only. If the complainant fails to pay the bill amount within the due date the supply will automatically be disconnected as per Rules. The representation of the complainant was not considered as the consumption of the electricity was more than fixed, hence the amount was calculated at the rate fixed for the said slab for consumption of more than 75 HP at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA for HT Category I and the opposite party has not collected any excess amount from the complainant. There is no necessity for the opposite party to issue any excess bill without any excess consumption. There is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no excess bill issued by the opposite party. Hence the complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed with costs. O.Ps 2 to 5 filed memo adopting the counter filed by O.P.1.



    4. In support of his case the complainant filed a memo requesting this Forum to read the affidavit filed along with the complaint as his affidavit and relied upon Exs.A-1 to A-21.


    5. The 1st opposite party filed affidavit with the same contentions mentioned in their counter and the opposite parties 2 to 5 filed a memo adopting the affidavit filed the 1st opposite party and did not file any documents on their behalf.


    6. The points for determination now are:

    1. Whether the complainant has established his claim with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?

    2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for by him?

    3. To what relief?
    7. The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant is a consumer of OPs department having Service connection No.01752-36109 under Category-3A of Phase-3 to his Rice Mill. The sanctioned load of power supply is 75 HP. The fixed demand charges up to 75 HP is Rs.2,775/-. The opposite parties issued bills dated 8.1.2009 and dated 7.2.2009 vide Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-5 for Rs.49,674-09ps., and Rs.32,983/- showing the fixed demand charges as Rs.13,320-65 ps., and Rs.12,889-50ps., respectively. The complainant approached the OP.1 and asked for correction of the bill amount. The OP confirmed the bill and asked to pay the bill amount on or before the due date. But as there was no response from the side of the 1st opposite party, and as the due date was coming nearer, the complainant has paid the bill amounts on 21.1.2009 vide Ex.A-4 and on 16.2.2009 vide Ex.A-8 under protest and in the mean while the complainant made representation to OPs through his letters dated 19.1.2009 vide Ex.A-2 and 16.2.2009 acknowledged by OP-1 on 20.2.2009 vide Ex.A-6 respectively. So there is no dispute on Exs.A-1 to A-21.



    8. The main allegation of the complainant is that the OPs have issued bills for excess amount in the bills dated 8.1.2009 i.e., Ex.A-1 and dated 7.2.2009 i.e., Ex.A-5 by showing the fixed demand charges as Rs.13,320-65 ps., and Rs.12,889-50ps., instead of Rs.2,775/- respectively. Therefore the OPs collected an excess amount of Rs.10,480-65 ps., covered under the bill Ex.A-1 and Rs.10,114-50 ps., covered under Ex.A-5 respectively from the complainant towards fixed demand charges, which is a clear violation of law and tantamount to deficiency of service.



    On the other hand, the OPs contended that if the demand or load of the consumption of electricity energy exceeds beyond 75 HP the slab rate for the said load is changed at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA. According to the bills Ex.A1 and Ex.A-5 the electricity consumption by the complainant for his firm was consumed more than the contracted load. Hence the complainant was charged the consumption units at the rate of Rs.195/- per KVA as per the meter reading for the excess consumption. Hence the disputed bills were accordingly correctly calculated and issued. As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.



    9. As stated above there is no dispute on any aspect except charging the fixed demand charges as Rs.13,320-65 ps., and Rs.12,889-50 ps., instead of Rs.2,775/- each. The disputed bills dated 8.1.2009 and 7.2.2009 are marked as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-5. It is evident from the bills that the complainant consumed 10590 and 5844 units respectively during the billing period. For that purpose Rs.34,947/- and 18,993/- respectively is charged towards Energy Charges. Whereas OPs charged fixed demand charges as Rs.13,320.65ps., and Rs.12,889-50 ps., respectively. The learned counsel for OPs vehemently argued that the complainant consumed excess load of 7.04 HP, which comes under the slab rate of Rs.195/- per KVA. The learned counsel for the complainant in rebuttal argued that the OPs are misguiding the Forum and interpreting the provisions. He argued that his client never disputed the charging of energy charges at Rs.195/- per KVA because he is liable to pay the energy charges according to the slab rate. However the only dispute is on charging fixed demand charges. The OPs from the date of installation charging fixed amount of Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges even on the occasion of consumption of energy is more than the present. Therefore the OPs are trying to escape from their liability by showing another reason which is not in dispute. The leaned counsel has drawn our attention on Exs.A-9 to A-20 to substantiate his arguments. We have carefully gone through the Exs.A-9 to A-20. All these are electricity bills issued by OPs for the same service connection and for the same power supply of 75 HP. It is evident from seeing the Exs.A-1 to A-11 and these bills were issued for more consumption than the consumption of units covered under the bills Ex.A1 and Ex.A-5 in question and charged Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges in all the bills. The very disputed bills dated 8.1.2009 and 7.2.2009 which are marked as Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-5 prove that the billed units are not in excess than the units covered under the other bills Ex.A-9 to A-20. It is clear from seeing the Ex.A-9 to A-20 that irrespective of consumption of energy Rs.2,775/- is payable towards fixed demand charges for the load of 75 HP. There is no whisper in the counter of OPs with regard to charging the fixed demand charges. The OPs have not given any explanation in their counter as to how or why they have charged more than Rs.2,775/- contrary to the previous bills. The OPs have not filed any material to substantiate their contention that they can charge Rs.1333.66ps instead of Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges according to their counter. The OPs filed Booklet i.e., “General Terms and Conditions of supply” issued by OPs department. This booklet was issued to deal with the cases pertaining to theft of electricity under Clause 10 of the GTCS. Therefore we hold that this document will not help in any way to the OPs. In absence of the material on behalf of OPs and in light of Exs.A-9 to A-20, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is entitled to claim on Rs.2,775/- towards fixed demand charges for 75 HP connection. Charging of units @ 195/- per KVA is not in dispute and that the complainant paid the said charges. In our opinion, the OPs wrongly charged Rs.13,320.65ps and Rs.12,889.50ps., instead of Rs.2,775/- each towards fixed demand charges without any basis and it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Therefore we hold that the OPs are liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.10,480.65ps., covered under the bill Ex.A-1 and Rs.10,114.50ps., covered the bill Ex.A-5 which was collected from the complainant.



    10. The complainant is seeking direction to OPs to refund the above said excess amount together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., 21.1.2009 and 16.2.2009 respectively till the realization and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for putting him to mental agony and costs of the proceedings. The claim of 18% p.a. interest in our opinion, is very higher side but 6% p.a. interest is quite reasonable to award on the said refundable amount being utilized by the OPs from the date of its receipt. Hence we hold that the OPs are liable to refund the amount of Rs.10,480-65 ps. together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 21.1.2009 and so also Rs.10,114.50ps., together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.2.2009 to till the realization. However we hold that the OPs are at liberty either to refund the amount to the complainant or to adjust the same to the future bills. The complainant did not file any material in support of his claim of compensation. Moreover we have already awarded interest on the amount. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any separate lumpsum amount towards compensation. As such this claim is rejected. No doubt the complainant filed the complaint by engaging Advocate and paying court fee. Therefore we hold that the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint.



    11. In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,480-65 ps. together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 21.1.2009 and so also Rs.10,114.50ps., together with interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.2.2009 to till the realization and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Alternatively OPs are directed to adjust the said amounts to the future bills from January, 2009 onwards.

  2. #2
    Ramesh Madamshetty Guest

    Talking wrong meter reading

    Wrong meter reading taken by Mr Gopal since january, 2010. In these six months he has taken wrong meter reading three times. I am suffering with his arrogant attitude. I am working with PSU Insurance Company. Many time I visited to AE Office, but they are also not responded properly. One said I will enquire and come back to you, one said I joined recently I cant help you. I don't know whom I contact and how it rectify. I want justice. Please do justice. ...Ramesh Madamshetty, Flat No.504, Heavenly Homes, Alakapuri Road No.1, R K Puram, L B Nagar Municipality, Hyderabad 500 035. My contact No.9533231720.

  3. #3
    Unregistered Guest

    Default huge bills we are paying last six months in our Nacharam, Hyderabad area.

    I am here with giving a complaints related to the huge bills we are paying last six months in our Nacharam, Hyderabad area.
    for example.
    In our home i pain a bill amount of Rs 307.00 for usage of 10(TEN) UNITS.
    Please give the justified answer to my mail: adepu99n@gmail.com

+ Submit Your Complaint

Similar Threads

  1. Transco
    By admin in forum Judgments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-03-2009, 08:19 AM
  2. A.P. Transco, Peddapally
    By Sidhant in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 02:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •