PEDDI MARUTHI Vs. CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the complainant before the District Forum assailing the order passed by the District Forum.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

(3.) The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties since 20 years bearing service connection No.MD-862 LT III category load of 75 HP and running para boiled rice mill seasonally and paying the electricity bills regularly. It is the case of the complainant that opposite parties 2 to 8 replaced the meter thrice i.e. on 16-4-1996, 21-6-1996 and 12-5-1997. It is their duty to record the meter reading in Meter Reading book while replacing the meters each and every time. They came to the Mill and warned to seize and disconnect the supply of electricity saying that the complainant committed default in paying the bill amount of Rs.53,988/-. The complainant approached the opposite parties 4 to 8 to enquire about it and was informed that the audit authorities addressed a letter to them stating that there is short fall of amount of Rs.58,988/- for the period from 2/97 to 12-5-1997 which was not recorded in the Meter Reading book. Opposite parties issued bill dt.1-10-2006 for Rs.23,435/-. The complainant submitted that as per opposite party No.7 letter dated 29-7-99 addressed to opposite party No.4 wherein it was pointed out tht a letter was addressed to field vide letter dt.28-12-1998 for want of physical verification report and on account of non receipt of the above report from the field, short fall amount of Rs.53,989 was included in 6/99 and 7/99 CC bill basically for the reason that meter was replaced and low consumption was suspected. He also stated in another letter that the meter was referred to field vide letter dated 28-12-1998 and reminder has been issued to opposite party No.7 dt.15-4-1999 and field report has not been received and short fall amount of Rs.53, 989/- was included in 5/99 and 6/99 bill and for the month of 6/99 a CC bill for Rs.1,06,605/- for billed units of 14175 at Rs.52,615.00 as also Audit para amount of Rs.52,989/- and demanded the same. The complainant submitted that he made an application to the Chief Engineer (Opertions) APNPCL on 15-10-2005 requesting not to disconnect the supply to his mill and to drop the recovery of the alleged short fall amount of Rs.58,989/- but there was no reply received from the opposite parties. As there was a possibility of the opposite parties disconnecting the service at any moment for non payment of alleged short fall amount which was included in the bill for the month of 6/99 for Rs.1,06,605/- and as the complainant has paid only Rs.52,615/- though it was demanded in the year 1999 and submitted that payment of alleged short fall amount as per Audit report does not arise and the same was kept pending for last 7 years. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties were threatening that they would disconnect the service connection of the complainant if the amount of Rs.53,989/- was not paid. Therefore, he approached the District Forum for a direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the service connection No.MD-862 LT category of his mill and to direct them to reassess the bill amount of Rs.53,988/- and bill of Rs.77,423 and direct to issue fresh bills together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.1500/-.