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 4 of 4

Thread: Apepdcl

  1. #1
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default Apepdcl

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACT NO. 68 OF 86) AT SRIKAKULAM


    P R E S E N T

    01. Sri P.Gurunadha Rao,
    President, District Consumer Forum,
    Srikakulam
    02. Smt. D.Raj Kumari, B.A.(Hons.), B.L.,
    Lady Member.
    03. Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna, B.L.,
    Male Member.
    Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009

    C.D.No. 69 /2007


    BETWEEN:

    M/s. Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mill, Rep.by its Proprietor, Gedela Venkata Rao Naidu, S/o.Simhadri Naidu, Business, Aged about 71 years, Cheedipudi Vilage, Cheedipudi Post, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Complainant.

    AND:

    01) The Assistant Divisional Engineer (OPs), APEPDCL,
    Tekkali, Srikakulam District.
    02) The Divisional Engineer (OPs), APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 03) The Assistant Accounts Officer, ERO, APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam Dist. 04) The Assistant Engineer (OPs), APEPDCL, Saravakota, Srikakulam Dist. 05) The Superintendent Engineer (OPs), APEPDCL, Srikakulam. …opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on 27-01-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Y.Tirupathi Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.V.Ramana Dayal, Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
    O R D E R
    This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
    Complainant is a rice mill represented by its Proprietor. Rice mill is having electricity service connection No.70 under category No.IIIA. The rice mill has established 50 HP motors and installed 30 KVR capacitors as per the advice of the electricity authorities. On 13-1-2007 electricity authority changed the service of the rice mill from existing LT to HT and replaced HT meter in the place of old meter at DTR (Transformer). Later opposite party No.3 issued monthly consumption bill for January, 2007 in which Rs.7,403-75ps. was charged towards low power factor. Complainant did not pay the same. Again in February, 2007 bill an amount of Rs.15,865-63ps. was charged as power factor surcharges. Opposite parties informed the complainant that he should install additional 20 KVR capacitors to recover power factor and accordingly complainant had installed 20 KVR additional capacitors in first week of March, 2007.


    There was fault either in HT meter or in DTR transformer. In March, 2007 another bill was issued claiming Rs.9,936-88 ps. towards power factor surcharges . But the complainant had not paid power factor surcharges claimed in February, 2007 and March, 2007 monthly bills. On 4-4-2007 opposite party No.4 removed the defective transformer and installed another transformer. Again this transformer was replaced by another transformer on 12-4-2007. It is further stated that the original transformer was defective. Opposite party NO.3 again levied Rs.5,274-54ps. towards power factor surcharge in monthly bill of April, 2007. Hence complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to set aside monthly bills January, 2007, February, 2007, March, 2007 and April, 2007 in so far as power factor surcharges are concerned as illegal and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.30,000/-.
    2) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that the consumers of category No.IIIA provided with metering capables of measuring active and reactive power under orders of the commission shall be required to pay low power factor surcharge for the power factor obtaining during the months subject to the ceiling of the level of capacitor surcharge i.e, 25% of all bill amount. The low power surcharge is levied to category No.IIIA service as per the tariff order if the power factor falls below o.90. The power factor surcharge is to be levied on energy and demand charges including excess demand charge. Service connection of the complainant rice mill was provided with meter capable of measuring active and reactive power as per orders of APREC. Power factor means the ratio of Kilo Watt hours consumed in the months to Kilovolt hours registered during the month i.e, average demand for the months in K.Ws/maximum demand for months in K.Ws. As per terms and conditions of supply and as per the above said tariff order, CC bill along with power factor surcharge of Rs.7,403-75ps. levied in the month of February, 2007 as the power factor had fallen to below 0.85 and the complainant had paid only CC charges but not power factor surcharges. Again in March, 2007 CC bill was issued along with power factor surcharge of RS.15,865-63ps. as the power factor had fallen below 0.75. Power factor surcharge levied under CC charges as per terms and conditions of supply. Again in April and May, 2007 CC bills were issued with power factor surcharges of Rs.9,936-88ps., and Rs.5,274-56ps., as the power factor had fallen. It is further stated that there is no fault in HT meter or DTR or both. There is no default on departmental side either in HT meter or in the transformer. As per the representation of the complainant the premises, rice mill was inspected by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Tekkali on 3-4-2007 and found that there was no fault in DTR or in Departmental equipments. However on verification of power factor, the existing transformer was changed with new one and observed that the power factor ratio falls against the service. There is no fault in existing capacitors. Power factor surcharge does not depend upon the capacitors. It was calculated on consumption. The ELR hours were also intimated to the complainant


    and shortfall surcharge on power factor was levied on the consumption in the months / Ampere hours. The transformer was replaced with new one for the purpose of verification only but not on the ground of defect. After installation of new transformer there was variation in consumption and power factor for the months of April, 2007 and May, 2007 and power factor ratio had fallen and levied power factor surcharge as per consumption of the service connection in question. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
    Opposite party Nos.2 to 5 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.1.
    3) Both parties filed affidavits. Exs.A1 to A12 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
    Heard both parties.
    Point for consideration is:
    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    4) POINT:
    Complainant field affidavit with the same facts contained in the complaint. Opposite parties filed affidavit with the same facts contained in their counter. Ex.A1 is bill in which an amount of Rs.77,545/- was claimed. Ex.A2 is receipt for Rs.50,265/-. Ex.A3 is CC demand bill for February, 2007, for an amount of Rs.80,696/-. An amount of Rs.15,865-63ps. was claimed in this bill towards low power factor charges, but the complainant did not pay the same. Ex.A4 contained copies of demand drafts showing that the complainant had paid total an amount of Rs.64,470/- towards Ex.A3 bill. Ex.A5 is another bill in which an amount of Rs.51,434/- was claimed. Ex.A6 is copy of demand draft showing that the complainant paid RS.40,890/- towards Ex.A5 bill leaving Rs.9,936-88ps., towards low power factor charges. Ex.A7 is bill for Rs.28,627/- in which an amount of RS.5,274-56ps.. was claimed towards low power charges. Complainant did not pay the same. Ex.A8 is copy of notice dated 31-3-2007 issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1 stating that since changing of service from LT to HT (13-1-2007) many irregularities were found in meter readings. It was found that there was fault with the meter and transformer. Hence power factor was not achieved. Ex.A9 is another copy of notice dated 22-4-2007 issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1 stating that A.E., had investigated the problem and confirmed that the transformer was not functioning properly. The said transformer was replaced. Again this transformer was replaced. Ex.A10 is another copy of letter dated 28-4-2007 issued by the complainant to opposite party No.1 stating that on 28-4-2007 Assistant Engineer had approached to disconnect service connection of the complainant for non-payment of Rs.54,000/-.
    5) It is the case of the complainant that due to defect in the meter and transformer, low power factor was the result in the complainant rice mill and the bills


    issued for the months of January, 2007, February, 2007, March, 2007 and April, 2007 in respect of lower power factor surcharges have to be set aside. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that low power factor was caused due to defect in the meter and transformer. There is no evidence to show that the meter and transformer were defect and there was fault in the meter and transformer. There is no basis to hold that charging amounts towards low power factor is illegal. Complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in claiming low power factor surcharges in January, 2007, February, 2007, March, 2007 and April, 2007 bills. We therefore, hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we answer the point accordingly.
    In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Interim order dated 3-5-2007 passed in I.A.No.128/2007 is vacated. Opposite parties are at liberty to disconnect power supply to the complainant rice mill for nonpayment of low power factor surcharges claimed in January, 2007, February, 2007, March, 2007 and April, 2007 CC bills.
    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on this the 25th day of March, 2009.

  2. #2
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACT NO. 68 OF 86) AT SRIKAKULAM


    P R E S E N T

    01. Sri P.Gurunadha Rao,
    President, District Consumer Forum,
    Srikakulam
    02.Smt. D.Raj Kumari, B.A.(Hons.), B.L.,
    Lady Member.
    03. Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna, B.L.,
    Male Member.
    Dated this the 20th day of March, 2009

    C.D.No. 40 / 2007


    BETWEEN:

    M/s.Prema Industries, rep.by its Managing Partner, Boyina Govinda Raju, S/o. Ramana Murthy, aged 55 years, Business, Tarlipeta Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Complainant.

    AND:

    01) The Asst. Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL, Kotabommali, Srikakulam District. 02) The Asst. Divl. Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Tekkali , Srikakulam District. 03) The Divisional.Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 04) The Asst. Accounts Officer, E.R.O., APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 05) The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Srikakulam. …opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on 05-01-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Y.Tirupathi Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.V.Ramana Dayal, Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
    O R D E R
    This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
    Complainant is a partnership firm doing business in milling paddy in a rice mill with 100 HP motors with electricity service connection No.11 under category No.IIIB in Tarlipeta Village in Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. There used to be frequent power cuts and there was power supply for 5 to 6 hours a day to the rice mill of the complainant. Consequently complainant was not able to do business satisfactorily. In February, 2006 electricity bill an amount of Rs.15,922/- was added towards low power factor charges. Complainant protested the same and opposite party NO.5 promised to look into the mater, but no action was taken. Complainant issued notice to opposite party No.4 on 30-3-2006 and there was reply threatening to disconnect power supply to the complainant rice mill. Complainant again issued notice to opposite party No.4 on 17-4-206 and there was no action. Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.15,972/- on 30-5-2006 under protest. Complainant opted for power supply from town feeder to the complainant rice mill and paid Rs.40,000/-. Evenafter shifting power supply from rural feeder to town feeder, there was no improvement in duration of power supply. In February, 2007 electricity bill an amount of Rs.25,737-47 ps. was added towards charges for low power factor. There were regular power cuts to all sections and there were other several factors who were directly responsible for power failure


    such as 1) main grid break down; 2) transformer break downs; 3)natural calamities etc. Opposite parties are penalizing the complainant without any fault on the part of the complainant rice mill and the opposite parties were high handedly imposing charges towards low power factor which was illegal and arbitrary. Hence complaint is filed for setting aside monthly bills of February, 2006 and February, 2007 in which surcharge of Rs.15,972/- and Rs.25,737-47ps. claimed towards low power factor and for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.15,972/- which was paid by the complainant and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.30,000/-.
    2) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that prior to February, 2007 complainant’s service connection was existing on 11 KV Kotabommali rural feeder which was being supplied three phase supply seven hours per day. If any hurdle or obstruction to the feeder appear due to technical problem, three phase supply duration lost for that period would be compensated on the same day itself and this was the regular practice adopted by the opposite parties to safeguard agricultural consumers for supply of seven hours three phase supply per day. Complainant had failed to install sufficient capacity of capacitors or to replace the failed capacitors in time. Complainant had failed to maintain the required power factor and hence low power factor surcharge of Rs.15,972/- was claimed in monthly bill of February, 2006. At the request of the complainant, power supply to the complainant rice mill was changed from rural feeder to town feeder in the month of February, 2007. An amount of Rs.25,737-47ps., was levied towards low power factor charges in February, 2007 monthly bill because the complainant had failed to maintain sufficient capacity of capacitors.
    Opposite party Nos.2 to 5 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.1.
    3) Both parties filed affidavits. Exs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
    Heard both parties.
    Point for consideration is:
    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    4) POINT:
    Complainant filed affidavit stating the same facts as in the complaint. Opposite parties filed affidavit stating the same facts as in the counter. Ex.A1 is notice dated 7-3-2006 issued by the complainant to the ERO., E.P.D.C. of A.P.Ltd., Tekkali, requesting him to reduce the surcharge and also request him to provide power supply from town feeder instead of rural feeder. Ex.A2 is reply notice dated 30-3-2006 issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.P.D.C. of A.P.Ltd., Tekkali to the complainant stating that power factor surcharge would be levied depending upon ratio of KWH to KVA hours, but not quantum of utilization of power supply. Complainant was liable to pay surcharge of Rs.15,923/- for January, 2006. Ex.A3 is copy of notice dated 17-4-2006 issued by the complainant to the Assistant Accounts Officer, E.P.D.C. of A.P.Ltd., Tekkali stating that the complainant was not liable to pay low power charges and requesting him not to claim low power factor in the monthly bills. Ex.A4 is copy of Bill dated 26-4-2006 in which Rs.15,922/- was claimed towards low power factor charges. Ex.A5 is copy of receipt dated 30-5-2006 showing that the complainant paid Rs.15,972/- towards low power factor charges. Complainant waited for one year after payment of low power factor charges of Rs.15,972/-. Ex.A7 is bill dated



    26-2-2007 in which an amount of Rs.25,737-47ps. was claimed towards low power factor charges. Then the complainant has filed this complaint questioning imposing of surcharge of Rs.15,972/- in February, 2006 bill and also questioning imposition of Rs.25,737-47ps. in February, 2007 bill towards low power factor charges. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he is not liable to pay low power factor charges of Rs.15,922/- for February, 2006 bill and Rs.25,737-47ps in February, 2007 bill. In Ex.A1 notice dated 17-3-2006 complainant had requested the opposite parties to reduce the surcharge. In Ex.A2 reply notice dated 30-3-2006 the Assistant Accounts Officer, EPDC of AP Ltd., Tekkali explained to the complainant about imposition of surcharge towards low power charges. Complainant having received the same had kept quiet till he received another bill in February, 2007 demanding an amount of Rs.25,737-47ps., towards low power factor charges. Complainant filed affidavit and he has not explained in his affidavit how he is not liable to pay low power factor charges. There is no basis to hold that the demand for low power factor charges in February, 2006 and February, 2007 monthly bills is illegal. The allegation made by the complainant against the opposite parties is that there used to be regular power cuts, there used to be main grid break down, transformer break down and natural calamities and the complainant rice mill was not able to do business satisfactorily. In Ex.A2 reply notice, the Assistant Accounts Officer, stated that the power factor surcharge levied depending upon ratio of KWH to KVA hours, but not quantum of utilization of maximum power supply. According to the opposite parties, quantum of power utilized by the complainant rice mill has no relation to low power factor.
    5) There is no evidence to show that the demand made by the opposite parties in February, 2006 and February, 2007 bills towards low power factor charges is illegal. There is no basis to hold that the demand towards low power factor charges made in February, 2006 and February, 2007 is illegal. Complainant had paid Rs.15,922/- towards low power factor charges as per February, 2006 bill. Complainant had not paid low power factor charges of Rs.25,737-47 ps., as per February, 2007 bill. Complainant has failed to explain why he is not liable to pay the said low power factor charges. It cannot be presumed that the demand towards low power factor charges is illegal. Unless and until there is evidence to show that the demand towards low power factor charges is illegal, there cannot be a direction for refund of any amount paid by the complainant towards low power factor charges. We therefore, hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we answer the point accordingly.
    In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Interim order dated 28-03-2007 passed in I.A.No.96/2007 is vacated. Opposite parties are at liberty to recover Rs.25,737-47ps from the complainant rice mill with interest at 12% per annum from February, 2007 till the date of payment. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).
    Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum on this the 20th day of March, 2009.

  3. #3
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACT NO. 68 OF 86) AT SRIKAKULAM


    P R E S E N T

    01. Sri P.Gurunadha Rao,
    President, District Consumer Forum,
    Srikakulam
    02. Smt. D.Raj Kumari, B.A.(Hons.), B.L.,
    Lady Member.
    03. Sri K.Siva Rama Krishna, B.L.,
    Male Member.
    Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009

    C.C.No.175/2007


    BETWEEN:

    Sri B.Appa Rao (Died) Registered Consumer, Sri Pedada Venkata Rao, (Present Consumer),
    S/o.Laxmana Rao, aged about 30 years, D.No.4-2/1, Korlakota Village and Post,
    Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Complainant.

    AND:

    01)Superintendent of Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Srikakulam.

    02)The Assistant Divisional Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Amadalavalasa.

    03)The Assistant Engineer, Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.Ltd., Amadalavalasa. …opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on 22-01-2009 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Trinadha Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.V.Ramana Dayal, Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

    O R D E R
    (By Sri K.Sivarama Krishna, Member)
    This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
    Complainant is having electricity service connection under category No.II. He received provisional assessment notice dated 24-1-2007 from opposite party No.2, demanding an amount of Rs.56,411/-. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.28,280/- towards half of the assessment amount on 31-1-2007. Opposite parties demanded payment of the remaining half of the assessment amount and threatened to disconnect service connection if not paid. Hence the complaint is filed challenging the said provisional assessment notice dated 24-1-2007 as illegal and for a direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect service connection of the complainant and for payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
    2) Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the service connection of the complainant was inspected on 19-1-2007 in the presence of the father of the complainant and it was found that the supply was being used for cable TV network and further it was found that a single standard copper wire was connected between the incoming phase wire and hence the complainant was availing supply by suppressing the actual consumption and by passing the meter. Provisional assessment notice was issued to the



    complainant for pilferage of energy for an amount of Rs.56,411/- and the complainant paid Rs.50% of the said assessment amount on 31-1-2007 and electricity supply was restored. It is further stated that the department is at liberty to disconnect power supply for non-payment of the remaining assessment amount.
    3) Opposite parties 1 and 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.2.
    4) Opposite parties filed additional counter stating that this Forum has no jurisdiction since a Special Tribunal was constituted under he Electricity Act.
    5) Both parties filed affidavits. Exs.A1 and A2 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Exs.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
    Heard both parties.
    Point for consideration is:
    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    6) POINT:
    Complainant filed affidavit stating the same facts as in the complaint. Opposite parties filed affidavit stating the same facts as in the counter. Ex.A1 is provisional notice dated 24-1-2007 issued by the Assistant Divisional Engineer to the complainant stating that the service connection of the complainant was inspected on 19-1-2007 by the Assistant Engineer/DPE-I, Visakhapatnam and it was observed that the meter disk was not rotating when the full load was on. After detailed verification, it was observed that a single stranded copper wire was connected between incoming phase wire and directly connected the other end to the load, thus the consumer was dishonestly availing supply and suppressing the actual consumption to be recorded by the meter. Hence service connection was disconnected. Assessment for one year was made. It comes to 3444.48 units. Units lost due to theft were arrived at 3091.48 units. First 247 units were charged at the rate of Rs.3-05ps. x 3 and next 2844.48 units were charged at the rate of Rs.6-25 ps. x 3. An amount of Rs.56,411/- was arrived at by calculating at the above rate.
    7) Opposite parties calculated the loss of units for 12 months due to tampering of the meter. They are justified in demanding three times the rate per unit for all the units assessed, but they are not justified in demanding enhanced rate i.e., at the rate of Rs.6-25ps. per unit.
    8) Complainant paid Rs.28,280/- towards half of the assessment amount and filed the present complaint questioning the said provisional assessment notice dated 24-1-2007. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that there was no pilferage of energy as shown in Ex.A1 provisional assessment notice. Therefore provisional assessment notice cannot be set aside. But the opposite parties are not justified in demanding enhanced rate i.e., Rs.6-25 ps. per unit for 2844.48 units. Opposite parties may be justified in demanding three times the normal rate i.e., Rs.3-05ps. per unit. It comes to Rs.31,516-99ps. (3444.48 x 3-05 x 3. We therefore hold that the opposite parties are not justified in demanding Rs.56,411/- instead of Rs.31,516-99ps. Complainant had already paid Rs.28,280/- on 31-1-2007. So the complainant has to pay the remaining amount i.e., 31,516-99 - 28,280 = Rs.3236-99ps. We therefore hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we answer the point accordingly.






    In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is directed to pay Rs.3,237/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred and thirty seven only) to the opposite parties within one month from the date of this order and the opposite parties shall accept the same towards full satisfaction of the provisional assessment amount (dated 24-1-2007). No costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only).

  4. #4
    admin is offline Administrator
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ACT NO. 68 OF 86) AT SRIKAKULAM


    P R E S E N T

    01. Sri P.Gurunadha Rao,
    President, District Consumer Forum,
    Srikakulam
    02. Smt. D.Raj Kumari, B.A.(Hons.), B.L.,
    Lady Member.
    Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009

    C.D.No.34/2007


    BETWEEN:

    M/s.Sri Laxmi Rice Mill, rep.by its Proprietor, Dakkata Srinivasa Reddy,
    S/o.At@@@@arami Reddy, Aged 44 years, Business, Thotavuru Village,
    Biralangi Post, Ichapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Complainant.

    AND:

    01)The Asst. Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL, Ichapuram, Srikakulam Dist.
    02)The Asst.Divl. Engineer, Constn.Operation, APEPDCL, Sompeta, Srikakulam District.
    03)The Divl. Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam Dist.
    04)The Asst. Accounts Officer, E.R.O., APEPDCL, Kasibugga, Srikakulam Dist.
    05)The Deputy Tahasildar, Circle Office, APEPDCL, Srikakulam.
    06)The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL, Srikakulam.
    …opposite parties.

    This complaint coming on 19-09-2008 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Y.Tirupathi Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri P.V.Ramana Dayal, Advocate for opposite party Nos. 1 to 6 and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:
    O R D E R
    This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and facts of the case briefly are as follows:
    Complainant is a rice mill represented by its Proprietor Dakkata Srinivasa Reddy. Complainant rice mill applied for separate service connection and paid Rs.30,150/- to the opposite parties on 10-3-2004. The owner of the complainant rice mill was having another rice mill situated at a distance of 300 mtrs away from this rice mill. On 17-2-2007 opposite party NO.5 seized a spare 10 HP motor from the premises of the complainant rice mill under Revenue Recovery Act towards arrears due from other rice mill. Hence complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to sanction a separate new service connection to the complainant rice mill and for a direction to the opposite parties to return 10 HP motor seized on 17-02-2007 under Revenue Recovery Act and for a direction to opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.30,000/-
    2) Opposite party NO.2 filed counter stating that the complainant established a new rice mill with 20 HP without intimation to the Department. Complainant paid Rs.30,150/- on 10-3-2004 towards regularization of additional load of 19.5HP, but not for release of new service connection. Complainant established a new fictitious service to avoid additional load of 20 HP of service connection No.77 without paying the tariff under category No.IIIB due to increase of load beyond 74HP. It is further stated that the complainant did not deposit any amount towards new service connection. The seizure of motor from the premises of service connection No.77 was made under Revenue Recovery Act. It is further stated that the complainant to avoid payment of additional load and re-categorization of service into category No.III B applied for new service connection.
    Opposite party Nos.1, 3 to 6 filed memo adopting the counter filed by opposite party No.2.
    3) Exs.A1 to A4 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
    Heard both parties.
    Point for consideration is:
    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
    4) POINT:
    Complainant filed affidavit with the same facts contained in the complaint. Opposite parties filed affidavit with the same facts contained in the counter.
    5) It is the case of the complainant that he applied for a new service connection to a new rice mill and paid Rs.30,150/-. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant did not pay Rs.30,150/- towards new service connection, but the complainant paid the said amount towards regularization of additional load of 19.5 HP.
    6) According to the complainant, the complainant rice mill was established and new service connection was applied and an amount of Rs.30,150/- on 10-3-2004.
    The present complaint was filed on 23-3-2007 for a direction to issue new service


    connection to the complainant rice mill. Interim order was passed in I.A.No.84/2007 on 23-3-2007 directing the opposite parties to issue new service connection to the complainant rice mill. In spite of the said order new service connection was not given to the complainant rice mill.
    7) Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act gives power to the District Forum to give reliefs to the consumers as mentioned in the section. The District Forum can pass an order with respect to removal of defects pointed out in the goods. The District Forum can pass an order to replace the goods with new goods. The District Forum can pass an order to return the amount paid by the complainant. The District Forum can pass an order to pay compensation to the complainant. The District Forum can pass an order to remove defects or deficiency in services. The District Forum can pass an order to discontinue unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice. Some other powers are also there to protect the consumers. But there is no power to direct the opposite parties to issue fresh service connection to a rice mill. Not issuing fresh service connection to a rice mill is not deficiency in service. Supply of electricity is not a service. Electricity is energy measured by quantity. If the quality of electricity energy is not upto the mark, a consumer may approach the District Forum to rectify the defect in the quality of electricity energy. If there is any unfair trade practice, a consumer may approach the District Forum for redressal. Issuing fresh electricity service connection does not come under deficiency in quality or quantity of electricity energy. Issue of fresh electricity service connection is not a service. It is electricity energy supplied and in turn receive price for the electricity supplied.
    8) In the present complaint fresh service connection was not issued to the complainant rice mill because the owner of the complainant rice mill was already having another rice mill and he had to pay amounts to the opposite parties and the opposite parties proceeded to recover the amounts under Revenue Recovery Act and in fact, seized 10 HP motor from the other rice mill. Complainant applied for new service connection on 10-3-2004 and it was not give. The District Forum has no power to order for issue of new service connection. The remedy is elsewhere, but not under the Consumer Protection Act.
    9) Ex.A1 is resolution by Gram Panchayat to the effect that the owner of the rice mill by name Dakkata Srinivasa Reddy was permitted to construct a rice mill. Ex.A2 is provisional registration of complainant rice mill. Ex.A3 is copy of demand draft dated 10-3-2004 for Rs.30,150/-. Ex.A4 is Form.2 issued under Revenue Recovery Act under which 10 HP motor was seized. It shows that the owner of the rice mill by name Dakkata Srinivasa Reddy was due an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- and a motor was seized for recovery of the said amount. The owner of the rice mill by name Dakkata Srinivasa Reddy had to pay huge amounts to the opposite parties and established another rice mill and applied for a new service connection to that rice mill without paying huge arrears due towards electricity charges of a rice mill. There is no deficiency in quality or quantity of electricity energy ever supply by the opposite parties. In fact the opposite parties never supplied electricity energy to the complainant rice mill. We therefore hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties cannot be directed to issue new service connection. Hence we answer the point accordingly.
    In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). Interim order passed in I.A.No.84/2007 dated 23-3-2007 is vacated.

+ Submit Your Complaint

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
  •