FARUQI MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL Vs. A P TRANSCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a consumer complaint filed by a Multi Speciality Hospital against A.P. TRANSCO alleging that the later was guilty of deficiency in service in the following circumstances. The complainant was taking the service of supply of electricity from the opposite party under service connection Nos. X2 -4641/II and X2/4630 -II. The opposite party, obviously after making an inspection and preparing inspection notes and inspection report, issued an initial assessment notice requiring the complainant to pay a huge sum of Rs. 10,00,000 and odd towards the value of energy pilfered by the complainant. According to the complainant, the allegation of pilferage of electricity was baseless and at no point of time the inspecting officers had ever complained of any defects in the meters or any other illegal activity indulged in by the complainant. The complainant also contended that the maintenance contract was given to a contractor, who was also incharge of the electrical installations. On the day of inspection, the contractor was absent. The complainant suspected that the inspection was the handi work of the contractor and trouble mongers including some doctors in that locality. The complainant contended that the opposite party exaggerated the consumption of electricity even taking into account some unused air conditioners, etc. The Inspectors of the opposite party had not taken the signatures of the doctors and on the other hand they had taken signatures of some patients standing at the reception mistaking them to be the staff members of the nursing home. The allegations mentioned in the said notice that the wires were directly connected from the pole were absolutely wrong and baseless. At that time, the actual owner of the hospital was away in U.S. and therefore the doctors working in the nursing home were not aware of the facts and circumstances and the dealings of the owner with the opposite party. The officers of the opposite party conducted the raid on 25.7.2002 and they were in a drunken state at that time and they threatened the doctors and other staff members without any reason whatsoever. Thereafter the electricity supply was disconnected apart from frequent break downs in the power supply. The opposite party directed the complainant to pay half of the assessed amount. When the complainant requested for reconnection, opposite party directed the complainant to pay it in three equal instalments. Accordingly the instalment was paid and immediately the power supply was restored on 30.7.2002. However, the complainant challenged the allegations of pilferage as also assessment and therefore filed this consumer complaint, as untenable demand and the disconnection marked deficiency in service.

(2.) OPPOSITE party filed a counter affidavit in place of a written version denying the allegations against the officers. It was maintained by the opposite party that an inspection was conducted on 25.7.2002 at 7.58 p.m. and it was not 10.30 p.m. The Inspectors noted various incriminating points as follows:

(3.) IN support of its case, the complainant hospital filed an affidavit of one of the partners of the hospital and relied upon Exs. A1 to A8. Opposite party did not file any separate affidavit but the Commission appeared to have taken into account the counter affidavit as obviating the necessity of filing a separate affidavit. In support of its case, the A.P. TRANSCO relied upon Exs. B1 to B5.