BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.675 OF 2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.345/2020 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-II, HYDERABAD Between:

The Asst. Engineer, TSSPDCL, Indira Park, Banda Maisamma Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

1. Bura Srinivas, S/o Rajesham, H.No.SRT 403, Near Victoria Café, Ashok Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020.

2. S.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Late Satyanarayana, H.No.SRT 403, Near Victoria Café, Ashok Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020.

……..Respondents/Complainants Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s P.Ganeshwar Rao For the Respondents/Complainants : Party-in-persons HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NON-JUDICIAL)

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^st DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission-II, Hyderabad, dated 23.08.2021 in CC 345/2020, where under the opposite parties are directed to :- (i) pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and trauma caused to the complainant due to the negligent acts and deficiency of service upon the part of the opposite party; (ii) to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings and rest of the claims made by the complainant is dismissed. Time for compliance is 45 days from the date of receipt of this order”.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainants and opposite party.

3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is a tenant of H.No.SRT 403, Near Victoria Café, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad and complainant No.2 is the wife of the owner of the said house. The premises has got the electricity in the name of the late owner – Sri Venkatesham vide connection No.4041506. The present complaint is raised for the abnormal billing for the period 07.05.2020 to 20.06.2020 and 06.06.2020 to 07.07.2020. He received bills for Rs.25,950/- and Rs.23,095/- respectively and brought this to the notice of Asst. Engineer, TSSPDCL, Indira Park, Hyderabad. A complaint was raised for meter testing. He paid the testing charges of Rs.120/-, but there was no resolution to his complaint. For the monetary loss and deficiency of service, he filed the consumer complaint for the reliefs as prayed for.

4. Despite service of notices, the opposite party failed to appear before the Commission below and hence, were set ex-parte.

5. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex. A1 to A3. Complainants have filed their written arguments.

6. Aggrieved by the above orders, the Opposite Party preferred this appeal contending that the Commission below failed to consider the following grounds:

 The Commission below failed to take note of the fact that the disputed bills are related to Service Connection No.F4041506 installed in the name of one Sri Venkatesham, but not the respondents/complainants. Hence, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside on this ground itself.

 That the complainant filed the present complaint suppressing the material fact that the representative of the Consumer (SC No.F4041506) approached the appellant/TSSPDCL complaining excess bills in the months of June 2020 & July 2020 and he was immediately advised to get the meter tested as per the procedure of TSSPDCL Consumer/representative. Accordingly, the representative of the consumer with SC No.F4041506 paid Rs.120/- towards meter testing charges on 16.06.2020, but did not appear for testing of the meter for a long period as meter has to be tested in presence of the consumer/representative. After about 9 months after continuous persuasion, the representative of the consumer appeared on 16.03.2021 and the meter was tested on the same date in his presence.

