Date of Filing:27.02.2018
Date of Order:26.11.2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, \`HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT.CH.LAKSHMI PRASANNA, B.Sc, L.L.M, (PGD – ADR) MEMBER
ON THIS THE WEDNESDAY THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
C.C.No.107 /2018
Between
Sri R.S.Goel,
S/o. Late Sri K L Gupta, Aged 68 years,
Occ: Retired I A S. R/o.91,, Prashashan Nagar,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500110 ……Complainant
And
- TSSPDCL,
Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director,
No.6-1-50, Mint Compound,
Hyderabad – 500 063.Telangana
- The Asst. Accounts Officer,
ERO No.011, ERO, Banjara Hillsills,
TSSPDCL, Hyderabad. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant, : Mr. Md. Shafiquzzaman
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Mr.P.Gnaneswar Rao
O R D E R
(By Sri. P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
1) This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that issuance of bills for exorbitant amount by the opposite party and failure to adjust amounts to unfair trade practice hence a direction to opposite party to issue correct bills for the month’s of February, 2017 to May2017 as done for the months of June,, 2017 onwards and refund the amount of Rs.26,142/- and award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for causing mental agony to the complainant and further direction to from guidelines for disconnection to service connection in case of default in payment of bills.
2) Complainant’s case in brief is that:
Complainant is having service connection bearing A5009341 in domestic category of 5.00kv and has been paying monthly bills regularly. The average monthly bills for the service connection was for an amount of Rs.2000/- till January, 2017. From February 2017 started issuing bills for abnormal amounts for February 2017 issued bill for Rs.3,155/-, for March Rs.5,438/- for April, 9,845/-, May 2017, 16,512/-. Complainant made complaint to the meter recorder every time about the enhanced bills. While he was in Delhi on 29-5-2017, received a call from his daughter informing that electricity was disconnected for non-payment of bill for the month of May, 2017 though he paid it on 20.5.2017 and sent a message to that effect on 29.5.2017. There was no notice before effecting disconnection of service by opposite parties. Since there was problem on line payment the complainant asked his daughter to pay the bill on line again and after that he made several calls from Delhi to the department for restoration of the service connection.
After that for the month of August, 2017 complainant received the bill for Rs.29,481/-. Hence he filed on line complaint for the abnormal bill amount on 16.8.2017. On the said complaint electrical meter was sent for testing to the departmental testing laboratory and noticed that there was defect in the meter and same was replaced by the department with a new meter on 21.8.2017. The complainant was informed by the department that they will watch the power consumption for one or two months and on the basis of the said consumption they will raise the bill for the previous months . Bill for the September 2017 was issued Rs.18,684.11ps. Asst. Engineer operations Jubilee Hills by a letter informed to the Accounts branch of the Department that the meter of the complainant was tested and declared as ‘defective’ and asked to issue revised bill for the months of August and September, 2017, by taking average units at 322 and it comes to Rs.2,202/- per month. Based on the said letter of Asst. Engineer, Accounts Officer revised the bill for the months of August and September, 2017 and for the months of June, July issued for minimum charges.
Complainant again sent a complaint on 4.11.2017 to opposite parties requesting to issue revised bills with effect from 1-1-2017 on the basis of average consumption arrived after new meter was fixed as the bills already received from February, 2017 were for abnormal amounts but there was no response from the opposite parties. He sent a mail on 6.12.2017 enquiring the opposite party to inform him the rule under which department decided to revise the bills only for two months. The AAO sent reply reiterating his earlier reply of December,2017.
The opposite parties after testing the meter came to the conclusion that it was defective but obviously it did not became defective only on the date when it was tested for. Opposite parties have to come to a reasonable conclusion as to when abnormal meter reading was shown. Hence they should have revised all the bills for all the periods. Refusal to rectify all the
bills from February to May 2017with out any logic and reason is only arbitrary, obstinate and illegal and it amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs
3) Resisting complaint opposite party filed written version to admitting the service connection provided to the complainant with contracted load of 5.00kw but denied the allegations of unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on their part. The substance of stand taken in the written version of opposite party is that the consumption pattern of the complainant reveals that consumption varies from 391 units per month to 721 units per month and in summer months it was 1126 units 667 units , 406 units, 1000 units , 1380 units , 1140 units and 626 units during the period starting from January to 2015 and the amounts were charged accordingly.
The bill for February 2017 was billed in May 2017 showing consumption of 1882 units and was charged at Rs.16,546/- and the payment was received for the said month on 31.5.2017, whereas the due for payment of the same was 27.5.2017. Hence the service connection was disconnected for non-payment of bill by due date. Service connection was restored on receipt of the payment. The bill itself is notice to disconnect service connection for not payment of bill amount by due date.
The bills for August 2017 for the complainant service connection was issued at Rs.29,481/- for consumption of .3,225 units as per the meter reading. For the month of September bill was issued for Rs.18,685/- showing the units consumption at 2093 units. Based on the complaint of the complainant the meter was sent for testing at MRT lab and the test that result showed that the meter was getting impulse without load. i.e. meter recording the consumption even on no load. Hence meter was declared as defective and report to that effect was sent on 26.8.2017 and a new meter was fixed in place of old one. After observing the defective meter the bill was revised and an amount of R.44,127/- was withdrawn in the month of October , 2017 by taking average consumption of units at 322. For the month of June and July, 2017, bill’s were issued for Rs.200/- and Rs.175 as the meter was in the status of 09 as there was no consumption for two months. The billing period from January 2017 was clearly as per the consumption report . Hence there is no necessity to revise the bills from January 2017 onwards. The bill exceeded only for the months of August and September 2017 and for the rest of the period the billing pattern was normal and meter run normally. As observed from ledger the consumption of the complainant was on higher side in summer season. For the months of June 2015 units recorded was 1126 KV and for May, 2016 it was 1388 units and same was paid them without objection or complaint from the complainant’s side. There was no necessary to revise the bills from the month of February, 2017 onwards and there was no illegality or escalated billing on the part of opposite party. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4) In the enquiry the complainant got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same got exhibited sixteen (16) documents. Similarly for the opposite party evidence affidavit of one Mr.K.R.Sudheer Kumar stated to be its JAO, in charge is got filed and the substance of the same is in line with the stand taken in the written version. Six (6) documents are exhibited for the opposite parties. Both sides have filed the written arguments.
5) On a consideration of material brought on the record of both sides the following points have emerged for consideration:
- Whether the refusal to revise the bills from February 2017 onwards, for the complainants service connection amounts to deficiency of service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs prayed for in the complaint?.
- To what relief?
6) Point No.1: The complainant’s case essence is that normal consumption of the electricity bill raised for the consumption is Rs.2,000/- per month till January, 2017 . From February, 2017 onwards the opposite party started showing huge consumption of power and raised the bill for exorbitant amounts in respect of his domestic service connection. The opposite party got tested the meter at their laboratory and report revealed that the matter was defective . Hence bills issued for the months of May and June, 2017 was revised by the opposite party itself. The defect of the meter cannot be from the date of testing itself and it could be from the date when the reading was shown at exorbitant units from February 2017 onwards. To what extent the claim of complainant is true has to be examined.
The opposite party has filed the particulars of consumption of power units by the complainant and billing pattern as Exhibit B6 for the period from January, 2015 to February 2019. The complainant is not denying the truth or otherwise of the particulars under Exhibit B6. A close look of this Exhibit B6 shows in the month of May, 2015 consumption of units to service connection was 721 units and the bill raised was for Rs.5,146/- for the month of June,2015 the consumption of units was 1126 and bill raised was for Rs.8,588/-, for the month of July,2015 the units consumption was 667 and bill raised was for Rs.4,660/-. For the month of April, 2016 consumption of units was 1000 and the bill raised was Rs.7,510/-, for the month of May, 2016 the units consumption was 1388 and bill raised was Rs.10,831/- for June, 2016 the units consumption was 1140 and the bill raised was Rs.8,718/- for the month of July, 2016 the units consumption was 505 and the bill raised was Rs.3,298/-. Similarly for the month of April, 2017 the units consumption is shown 1171 and the bill raised was for Rs.9,845/- for the month of May, 2017 units consumption was 1882, and the bill raised was 16,546/-. Similarly the units consumption for the month of April, 2017 was 840 units and the bill raised was Rs.6,562/-, for the month of May, 2018 units consumption was 11,627 and the bill raised was Rs.9,853/- for the June 2018 units consumption was 1191 the bill raised was Rs.9,850/- for the month of July,2018 the units consumption was 640 the bill raised was Rs.4,917. April to July the consumption of power by the complainant on higher side and basing on it bills were issued. Complainant’s version is right from 2017 bills were issued for higher amount and not in accordance to power consumption. It is seen that the meter of the complainant was tested and it was found defective and for the same reason the bills raised for the months of August and September, 2017 were on higher side and based on the pattern of new meter for replacement of old one revised bills were issued.
The opposite parties issued credit voucher for an amount of Rs.41,787/- and same is reflecting in the books of account Exhibit in B5. For the months of June and July, 2017 the bill was issued and meter was in the status the 09 as there was no consumption for two months August and September. For the rest of the period the consumption pattern is as for the previous years of summer season. Hence refusal to revise the bill from February, 2017does not amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Now coming to the aspect of disconnection of power supply without a prior notice as mandated by code of practice prescribed by A.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission. Exhibit A16 is concerned disconnection of power connection for non-payment of bill is certainly ’violation’ of this code. The Department has to serve a notice on the consumer giving a notice of 7 days prior to disconnection of power supply as indicated in para 5(1) ( c ) of APERC Regulation No.7 when the consumer negligent to pay the bill amount due from him by due date mentioned in the bill. . The contention of the opposite parties that the service of bills itself is a notice has no legs to stand in view of this Regulation prescribed by APERC. Hence disconnection of the power supply to the complainant without service of notice is certainly deficiency of service . Accordingly the point is answered.
8) Point No.2:- In view of the above findings the complainant is entitled direction not to disconnect power connection by department to any consumer without notice of 7 days for disconnection of service connection in case of default in payment of bills by a consumer. Accordingly the point is answered.
9) Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties:
1) Not to disconnect service connection of any consumer under it without 7 days prior notice in case of non payment of bill amount. The rest of the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to steno , transcribed and typed by her and pronounced by us on the 26th day of November, 2019.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 to A5 – Copies of electricity bill cum notice
Ex.A6 – Copy of Email & forwarding mail by AAO ..
Ex.A7 – Copy of email making request to revise bills .
Ex.A8 - Copy of email reply from AAO
Ex.A9 & 10 – Copy of email making request to revise bills
Ex.A11 – Request for rules for not accepting request for revision of bills
Ex.A12 –Reminder for informing the rules.
Ex.A13 -Copy of AE agreed to revise the bills for Feb. to May, 17
Ex.A14 – Reply from AAO
Ex.A15 – Detailed statement
Ex.A16 – Code of practice on payment of bills by consumers
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Ex.B1 – MRT Lab Rent along with Panchanama
Ex.B2 – Copy of request for rectification of electricity bill
Ex.B3 – Copy of letter from the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.B4 – Calculation of revised amount
Ex.B5 - .Letter addressed to withdraw the revised bill.
Ex.B6 – Consumption billing , collection and arrears particulars
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
