BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM

Dated this, the 25th day of March, 2009

CORAM: 1. Sri. K.V. Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Senior Member/ i/c.President
2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member

C.C. No.722/2007

Between:
Sri Venkata Kanakdurga Rice Mill, rep. by its Prop. Korlakunta Venkata Appaiah,
S/o.Kotaiah, age: 75 years, occu: Business, r/o.Aswapuram village and mandal,
Khammam District.

... Complainant

And

The Divisional Engineer ( O & M) A.P.Transco., Bhadrachalam.
... opposite Party.

This C.C came before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.G.Hareender Reddy, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; and upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Senior Member/ i/c. President)

1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of Sri Venkata Kana Durga Rice Mill situated at Aswapuram. He paid the Electricity bills regularly on the service connection No.990, since 8 years. To his surprise on 25-9-2007 the opposite party issued a bill No.10045, for Rs.61,461/- apart from Rs.18,569.31Ps., and also Rs.23,112/- as A.C.D. amount payable on or before 24-10-2007 for the period from April, 2006 to January, 2007. The opposite party without any intimation and illegally sent the bill for Rs.61,461/- and threatening him to disconnect the said service connection. The act on the part of opposite party is illegal and arbitrary, hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to declare the bill for Rs.61,461/- dt.25-9-2007 issued by the opposite party is illegal, not to disconnect the power supply to S.C.No.990 to his rice mill and to award costs.
After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter, denying all the averments made in the complaint and submitted that as per clause No.5.13.1.1.of General Terms and Conditions of supply (approved by A.P. Electricity Regularity Commission and applicable to all consumers of Electricity) every L.T. Consumer using induction motors shall install LT shunt capacitors as specified, as the consumer was provided with meter of measuring active power and reactive power, the power factor surcharge was levied as per clause No.12.1.1of G.T.C.S. as it was recorded in the reading register from April, 2006 onwards to January, 2007 as per the clause 12.1.1 and the consumer was levied the capacitor surcharge from February, 2007 and he has already paid the same. The meter reading clearly indicates that there is continuous lower power factor. The consumer has visited the opposite party and he was explained that the amount pertains to the LPF surcharges which was not billed earlier and was pointed out by the Audit and the same must be paid by due date and he also advised to take installments if he need and the consumer has not turned till to date and the said service was also not disconnected till to date. In fact he should have approached any of the designated officers as per G.T.C.S. or approached consumer redressal forum of APNPDCL or Vidyuth Ombudsman of APERC at Hyderabad. As such this forum has not jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
On behalf of the complainant, he filed affidavit and electricity bills pertaining to the Service connection No.990. On behalf of the opposite party, no affidavit is filed and no documents are filed and marked.
Upon perusing the averments made in the complaint and counter filed by both parties, the point that arose for consideration is,
Whether the complainant is entitled as prayed in the complaint?
Point:
It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.61,461/-, as arrears amount for the period from April, 2006 to January, 2007 and demanding to pay the said amount on or before 24-10-2007. The contention of the opposite party is that the meter of the complainant clearly indicates that there is continuous lower power factor. Hence, as per the L.P.F. charges, the same amount was charged upon the complainant, if he aggrieved by the above said surcharge, the complainant has to approach any of the designated officers as per the GPCS or to approach the consumer redressal forum of APNPDCL or Vidyuth Obdusman of A.P.E.R.C., at Hyderabad. Hence, we are of the opinion that if the complainant aggrieved by the above L.P.F. surcharge, he can approach the above designated officers, but the complainant did not approach the above officers and filed this complaint. Hence, we are of the opinion that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this, 25th day of March, 2009.