Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/51/2018

Madupuru Prasad, S/o. Late Narasappa Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

M.Prasad, V.Bhaskar Naidu

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 13.07.2018

Order Date:14.06.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.51/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Madupuru Prasad,

S/o. late. Narasappa Naidu,

Aged about 57 years, Hindu, Advocate,

D.No. 6-167, Babu Agraharam,

Srikalahasti Town and Mandal.                                                     … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Assistant Executive Engineer,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Srikalahasti.

 

2.         The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Srikalahasti.

 

3.         The Divisional Executive Engineer,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Incharge of Srikalahasti Division,

            Tirupati.

 

4.         The Superintendent Engineer,

            A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.04.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Bhaskar Naidu, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12  of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant alleging as follows:-

2.  The complainant is resident of D.No.6-167, Babu Agraharam, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He installed Legrand automotive system with LED lights being operated with remote control in his house in the year 2014, at the cost of Rs.6,00,000/-. Without his knowledge and notice, the opposite parties and their employees, changed the service meter bearing No.5432200034512 two months back, without taking L.C. and without removing fuse carriers. For that reason complainant got excess billing of Rs.8,320/- in the month of April 2018, and Rs.7,000/- in the month of May 2018 i.e. after changing the meter. Prior to that complainant was getting less than Rs.3,000/- on an average per month towards electricity consumption charges. He gave complaint to APSPDCL through Meeseva on 07.06.2018 vide application No.SMTC011800347646, to verify the digital meter because of excess billing. At the time of change of the meter, there was big sound heard by the complainant and inmates of the house, and current went off. The complainant came out from his house and found that the employees of the opposite parties are in the verandah of the house and when he questioned them about the incident, they explained that they are having good experience in installing digital meters and they erected more than 5000 meters like that in the town, adopting the same procedure without L.C. permission.  Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties, complainant sustained damage of automotive system installed in his house to the extent of about Rs.10,00,000/-. The electrical components are not available in the Indian market and they are to be brought from Germany. At present there is no electric supply to his house. The Assistant Engineer along with his employees came to the house of complainant on 11.06.2018 at about 8 p.m., and on observing the damage caused,  requested the complainant to pardon the employees of Electricity Department. The cause of action arose on 09.06.2018 when the meter was changed without taking L.C. and without disconnecting the fuse wires and also when automotive system damaged. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.

3.  The opposite parties filed the written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint allegations are denied. As per Section-168 of Electricity Act 2003 and Section-82 of Electricity (Supply) Act 1948, “No suit or prosecution or any other legal proceedings lies against the employees of APSPDCL for anything done or in good faith”. The complainant should have filed the complaint against APSPDCL, but not against the employees. Further, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the case relates to meters. As per Apex Court observation in Accounts Officer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another vs. Anwar Ali case, “the assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature, which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum”. The complaint is therefore not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on that account. It is not in dispute that the complainant is residing at D.No.6-167, Babu Agraharam, Srikalahasti. It is not known to them that the complainant has installed ‘Legrand automotive system with LED lights’ in his house which is being operated with remote control in the year 2014 by spending Rs.6,00,000/-. The authorities of APSPDCL issued electrical meter bearing service connection No.5432200034512, and as per the guidelines given by IRDA, the said meter was changed on 04.04.2018 in the presence of complainant family members. It is denied that without removing fuse carrier meter was changed. It is not possible for any qualified electrical person to change the meter without removing the fuse carrier. The monthly consumption charges bill is depending on the consumption of electricity. In the instant case, in the month of April, 2018 the complainant had utilized 320 units, in the month of May 2018, 572 units are utilized, in the month of June 2018, 1093 units are utilized, in the month of July 2018, 908 units are utilized,  in the month of August 2018, 547 units are utilized, in the month of September 2018, 656 units are utilized, and in the month of October 2018, 508 units are utilized. Accordingly, bills were generated as per the slab tariffs. It is denied that APSPDCL has levied excess power bill to the complainant house. The same has to be proved by the complainant. It is admitted that complainant gave a complaint through Meeseva dt:07.06.2018 to verify the digital meter alleging excess billing. As per the guidelines of IRDA new electrical digital meters were installed in Ongole, Nellore, Tirupati and Kadapa circles. Accordingly, the authorities of APSPDCL installed new digital meters in the place of old meters, by taking all precautions to avoid undesirable incidents. The meter was changed in the presence of complainant and his family members. It is denied that APSPDCL employees without removing fuse carrier and without LC permission, removed the old meter to replace it with new meter. The averment in the complaint that complainant and his family members were watching TV in house, and after hearing big sound, they came out and saw electricity employees, and then questioned them, and that the employees explained about the change of meter are false. It is denied that the complainant sustained damages to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- due to negligence on the part of APSPDCL employees. The reason behind the alleged incident might be due to some other reason and not because of change of meter, as the Legrand automotive system prevents any short circuit automatically. It is false to say that opposite party along with the employees came to complainant house by 8 p.m. and observed the damage caused to the electrical system and requested the complainant to pardon the small employees of APSPDCL. The question of levying excess power bills by APSPDCL does not arise. On the request made by the complainant dt:11.06.2018 to APSPDCL for testing the digital meter to verify tripping if any, the said meter was sent to MRT lab, and after careful testing, it is opined that meter is in good condition and the same is informed to the complainant. The opposite parties therefore acted in good faith. A suitable reply was given by electricity department on 26.07.2018 for the legal notice issued by the complainant on 13.06.2018. The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.  P.W.1 filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were also filed third party chief affidavits in support of the case of P.W.1. On behalf of opposite parties R.W.1, R.W.2 and R.W.3 filed chief affidavits and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

 6.Point:- In the written arguments, complainant argued that there is negligence on the part of opposite party officials, as they have not taken precautions while changing the old service meter to digital meter, and due to their negligence a big sound came at the time of change of meter, as they did not remove the fuse carrier before change of meter. It is also argued that complainant got excess power bill of Rs.8,320/- in the month of April 2018, and Rs.7,000/- in the month of May 2018 after change of the meter. Their previous average electricity bill per month is Rs.3,000/-, for the last five years. It is the argument of complainant that he installed Legrand automotive system in his house and due to negligence of electricity officials while changing the digital meter, the entire automotive system failed and not rectified, and so there was no electricity in the house. It is the further argument of the complainant that respondents did not respond even after issuing legal notice to them claiming damages. Ex.A1 is office copy of legal notice dt:13.06.2018 issued to the opposite parties claiming damages. Ex.A2 is acknowledgement by opposite parties for receiving Ex.A1 in original. Ex.A3 is online receipt dt:07.06.2018 through Meeseva to the APSPDCL to change the meter. Ex.A4 is photocopy of meter change slip issued by the APSPDCL, Service No.34512 dt:09.06.2018. Ex.A5 is photocopy of letter issued by A.E of APSPDCL to the complainant on 11.06.2018. As per Ex.A5 it is stated that electricity meter is revolving at high speed thereby resulting in excess billing. Exs.A1, A3, A4 and A5 are not in dispute. Ex.A6 is email sent by one Rajesh B Myneni, who installed automotive system in the house of the complainant. The report of Rajesh Myneni is to the following effect – “1) We installed the Bticino home automation system in the house of Mr. Prasad 5 years back in Srikalahasti. 2) We used 2 power supply units, one in each floor separately. 3) The client faced a problem with frequent failures of LED light drivers and I told him that his problem is not because of our system. 4) Recently the client got his meter replaced and there was some disturbance in the power because of some unknown connection. 5) Both of our power supplies stopped working the very next day. 6) I sent my technician to the site and he found that the power supply units are not working. 7) Later after replacing the power supply units, to our surprise we observed that none of the automation items in that site were working, which includes Scenario Controls, Relay, Scenario Modules, Soft Touch and Memory Module. 8) We inspected the defective power supply unit and found that it was giving AC power output instead of 27V DC on the second side. 9) We inspected the DC wiring and it does not show any kind of burn or damage.”   

7.  The counsel for opposite parties argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the alleged problem is with regard to meter. Even otherwise, the electricity officials have tested the new digital meter on the request of complainant and filed report stating that there is nothing in the meter and it is functioning perfectly. Ex.B1 is reply notice issued by opposite parties to complainant dt:27.07.2018 denying the averments in the notice. Ex.B2 is postal acknowledgement of the complainant for receiving reply notice. Ex.B3 is photocopy of meter change slip, Service No.34512 dt:04.04.2018, and the same is not disputed by the complainant also. Ex.B4 is L.T.Meter test report dt:29.06.2018 wherein it is stated that meter is in good condition.

8.  We have gone through the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Accounts officer, Jharkhand vs. Anwar Ali – Appeal (civil) 4734 of 2007,  cited by the counsel for opposite parties with regard to jurisdiction of this Forum, pertaining to electricity meter problem. It is held in the said decision as follows – “In this connection, it is urged on behalf of the Nigam that assessment of the duty for unauthorized use of electricity, tampering of meters, distribution of meters and calibration of electric current are matters of technical nature, which cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum. It is urged that under the Electricity Act, 2003 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded. In this connection, reliance was placed on Section-145 of the said 2003 Act under which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain suits in respect of matters falling under Section-126 is expressly barred. These are matters of assessment. It is stated that 2003 Act is a complete Code by itself, and therefore in matters of assessment of electricity bills, the Consumer Forum should have directed the respondent to move before the competent authority under the Electricity Act, 2003 read with rules framed thereunder either expressly or by incorporation”.  In view of the above cited decision, we are of the view that the problems with regard to defective meters or excess billing cannot be gone into by this Forum, since there is separate Electricity Tribunal for the electricity consumers, created under Electricity Act 2003, and there is no technical expert on electricity matters in this Forum.

9.  No doubt P.W.2 and P.W.3 have filed affidavits supporting the case of P.W.1. The complainant did not say anything in the complaint about the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 at the time of change of meter by the electricity department employees. Hence, no credence could be given to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. As per the version of R.W.3, they have changed the meter in the presence of family members of complainant. R.W.2 filed affidavit to the effect that APSPDCL authorities issued electrical meter bearing service connection No.5432200034512, and as per the guidelines by IRDA, the said meter was replaced with new digital meter. His evidence to the effect that fuse carrier was refixed and he tested the supply of power into the subject house and found that there are no problems. R.W.1 is the Assistant Engineer of APSPDCL and as per his evidence, there is no question of excess billing, as the meter is perfect. There is nothing in the record to show that he was given false evidence. So, the contention of complainant that from April 2018 to October 2018 there was excess billing cannot be accepted, as the billing always depends on the consumption of electricity by the consumer.

10. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of complainant that heavy sound came when the meter was changed due to negligence of electricity department resulting in collapse of Legrand automotive system installed in his house cannot be accepted. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.

11.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.             

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 14^th day of June, 2019.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                    

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Madupuru Prasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-2: Arambakam Muni Prasad (Third party Chief Affidavit filed)

PW-3: Chembeti Subramanyam  (Third party Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Veramalli Punyakoti (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Chukkla Yeswanth (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-3: P. Eswar Prasad Babu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of Legal Notice. Dt: 13.06.2018 issued to the Opposite parties/Respondents.
	Three served postal acknowledgements and one returned postal cover        Dt: 18.06.2018.
	Online receipt Dt: 07.06.2018 through Meeseva to the SPDCL to change the meter( Computer Print Copy).
	Photo copy of Meter Change Slip issued by the SPDCL, Service No. 34512, Dt: 09.06.2018.
	Photo copy of Letter issued by A.E of A.P.S.P.D.C.L to the Complainant on 11.06.2018.
	Report through E-mail of the Automotive Dealer of Rajesh B Myneni, Dt: 13.06.2018

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of Reply Notice. Dt: 26.07.2018.
	Photo copy of the postal acknowledgement of the complainant. Dt: 31.07.2018.
	Photo copy of the Meter Change Slip. Service No.34512, Dt: 04.04.2018.
	Photo copy of the L.T. Meter Test Report. Dt: 29.06.2018.

 

      

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-      

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

           

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.