Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lakshmana Rao, President;
Pothuri Venkateswara Rao, Member Smt. Vanaja Iyengar, Member
D.V. LAKSHMINARAYANA—Appellant
versus
THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER &
ANOTHER—Respondents
Consumer Dispute Appeal No. 1 of 1989—Decided on 15.7.1989

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. D.V. Lakshminarayana, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Suresh Anand, Advocate & Mr. V.R. Reddy, Standing Counsel for APSEB.

The Electricity Board is not entitled to collect surcharge from a consumer for belated payment of charges if the delay is mainly due to the failure of the Board to issue a fresh slab card and furnish particulars of the dues payable to the consumer.

Headnote:
ELECTRICITY ACT - SECTION 24 - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(D)(II) AND 2(1)(O) - SURCHARGE - DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY CHARGES - FAILURE OF ELECTRICITY BOARD TO ISSUE FRESH SLAB CARD AND FURNISH PARTICULARS OF DUES - REFUND OF SURCHARGE COLLECTED.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a tenant of a house with an electricity service connection in his landlord's name, filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging that the disconnection of his electricity service without notice or a bill was illegal and that the surcharge levied on him for belated payment was unjustified. The Electricity Board contended that the appellant had no locus standi to file the complaint as he was not a registered consumer and that the surcharge was valid as per the terms and conditions of supply.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had availed the electricity service with the approval of the registered consumer, his landlord. The court further held that the Electricity Board was not entitled to collect surcharge from the appellant for belated payment of charges as the delay was mainly due to the failure of the Board to issue a fresh slab card and furnish particulars of the dues payable to the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had locus standi to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether the Electricity Board was justified in collecting surcharge from the appellant for belated payment of charges.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant was a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he had availed the electricity service with the approval of the registered consumer, his landlord. This interpretation is based on the definition of "consumer" in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, which includes any beneficiary of services when such services are availed with the approval of the person who hired the services for consideration. 2. The court held that the Electricity Board was not entitled to collect surcharge from the appellant for belated payment of charges as the delay was mainly due to the failure of the Board to issue a fresh slab card and furnish particulars of the dues payable to the appellant. This interpretation is based on the duty imposed on the Board to issue a bill for the entire year and the indifference and neglect of the Board and its subordinates in performing their functions.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the Electricity Board was directed to refund the surcharge collected from the appellant with interest.

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, President ––– This appeal arises out of an order dated February 14,1989 in the Consumer Dispute No. 4 of 1988 on the file of the District Forum, Guntur.

2. The appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum. He has been running an electrical repairshop ina portion of the house No. 4/14, Brodipet, Guntur let out by Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao for more than ten years. The shop was provided with electricity service connection bearing No. 32184 in the year 1983 in the name of the landlord Sri Surya Ramachandra Rao. The appellant herein has been availing the service connection with the approval of the landlord, Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao ever since the connection was provided and has been paying the charges for the electricity consumed by him. A slab card was supplied in respect of the said service connection in the year 1983. The slab amount was Rs. 30/- per month. The appellant had paid the slab amount regularly up to July 1984 when the period fixed under the slab card had expired.

3. Due to the agitation by a section of the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, fresh slab cards were not issued to the consumers during the period April to December 1984. Due to the failure on the part of the Electricity Board to issue a fresh slab card to the appellant, he could not pay the electricity charges from August 1984. It is the specific case of the appellant that though he had approached the authorities several times to obtain a fresh card as well as to ascertain the amount payable by him, he has neither issued a fresh slab card nor the particulars of the amount payable by him were furnished. That has been due to the work to rule agitation of the employees of the Electricity Board during the relevant period.

4. The version of the Electricity Board was that after the agitation was called off by the employees and normal work was restored, a counter was opened at the Revenue Office of the Board, Guntur in February 1985 and fresh slab cards were issued to the consumers. More than a year after the agitatin was called off, the service connection No. 32184 was disconnected in March 1986 without issuing a bill or any notice either to the appellant herein or to the owner of the house, Sri K. Surya Ramachandra Rao. According to the appellant, all his efforts to obtain, from the Revenue Office of the Board, Guntur, the details of dues payable to the Board proved futile and ultimately when he approached the Assistant Accounts Officer, he was informed that if he pays Rs. 1545.40 ps. the service connection to his shop would be restored. The petitioner paid that amount on September 26,1987 and the service connection was restored to his shop.

5. The amount of Rs. 1545.40 ps. paid by the appellant comprises of Rs. 72/- towards arrears payable up to July 1985, Rs. 216/- towards arrears payable from August 1985 to July 1986 at the rate of Rs. 18/- per month, Rs. 216/- towards arrears payable from August 1986 to July 1987, Rs. 30/- being the slab amount for August 1987, Rs. 991.40 ps. towards surcharge from January 1985 to August 1987 and Rs. 20/- towards re-connection fees.

6. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, Guntur stating that the non-payment of electricity charges during the relevant period was solely due to the failure on the part of the respondents to issue a fresh slab card in August, 1984 and furnish particulars of the dues payable by him. It was further stated that the appellant was deprived of his livelihood by reason of the dis-connection of the service to his shop without issuing any notice and without furnishing a bill containing particulars of the dues payable by him.

7. The respondents herein filed a counter before the District Forum admitting that fresh slab cards and disconnection orders for non-payment of electricity bills were not issued during the period April 1984 to Dec., 1984 due to the agitation of the employees of the Electricity Board. It was, however, pleaded that i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis