Judgment:
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member)
1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal and as setout in the complaint is that the complainant is a rice mill represented by its Proprietor Sanapala Krishnamurthy. The rice mill was having electrical service connection no.147 and running with 40.2 HP. The service connection was provided on 100 KVA DTR in the year 1988. In the year 2005 the complainant had applied for additional load of 8 HP and the opposite parties had sanctioned load of total 48.2 HP. The complainant had another service connection no.17 with 15 HP and also had a residential service No.89 in the same premises. The service connections of the complainant were connected to 63 KVA DTR in the year 2005 by removing them from 100 KVA DTR. The complainant had applied for additional load of 25 HP to the rice mill and the same was sanctioned on 5.1.2007. The complainant requested the opposite parties to connect the service connections of the complainant to 100 KVA DTR instead of 63 KVA DTR. The opposite parties accepted the same and provided electricity supply through 100 KVA DTR to the complainant rice mill and other connections. The opposite parties had issued notice dated 27.1.2007 to the complainant demanding payment of Service Line charges of `60,850/-, Load Development Charges of `37,500/- and Security Deposit charges of `12,500/-.
3. On 31.1.2007, the complainant had paid security deposit charges of `12,500/- and Load Development Charges of `37,500/- to the opposite parties. For non-payment of service line charges of `60,850/- the opposite parties installed 63 KVA DTR in the place of 100 KVA DTR. Due to insufficient capacity of 63 KVA DTR, the complainant rice mill was not functioning properly. The complainant made several requests to the oppose parties to withdraw HT meter charges and also 100 KVA DTR charges. On 28.6.2007 the opposite party no.1 addressed a letter to the opposite party no.3 to register LT application for release of additional 25 HP load to the existing load of 48.26 HP and installed 100 KVA DTR in the place of 63 KVA DTR. The opposite party no.1 addressed a letter dated 13.7.2007 directing the complainant to pay service line charges of `60,850/- towards extension of supply for additional load of 25 HP in addition to the existing load of 48.26 HP. The complainant need not pay `60,850/- to the opposite parties.
4. The opposite party no.2 resisted the claim contending that the supply of electricity to service connection no.147 was released under category No.III through 63 KVA DTR. Again additional load of 8 HP was released to the service connection from the same transformer which was adequate to feed the additional load. On 5.1.2007 the complainant had applied for additional load of 25 HP to the same service connection in addition to the existing load of 48.26 HP. 63 KVA DTR was not adequate to feed the additional load of 25 HP. An estimate of `1,81,160/- was made to install 00 KVA DTR of which `60,580/- towards service line charges, `12,500/- towards security deposit and `37,500/- towards Load Development charges. But the complainant had not paid service line charges of `60,580/-. The supply to the service was given from 63 KVA DTR and not through 100 KVA DTR. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents Exs.A1 to A14. Ghanta Narsingha Prasad, ADE, Srikakulam has filed affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties and documents Exs.B1 to B8.
6. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the premise that the complainant has to pay service charges for installing 100 KVA DTR since additional load of 25 HP was sought to be availed by him.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that he need not pay the service line charges as it is an existing service line and not a new line installed for the first time.
8. The point for consideration is that whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of fact and law?
9. The complainant is a firm engaged in the business related to rice mill under the name and style of Sri Vinayaka Rice Mill and it was provided with electrical Service Connection No.147 with a permissible load of 40.2 HP. The complainant has applied for additional load of 8 HP in the year 2005 and accordingly the opposite parties had sanctioned load of total 48.2 HP. In the same premises, the proprietor of the complainant firm has another service connection No.17 with permissible load of 15 HP and a residential service connection no.89. The contention of the complainant is that the aforementioned service connections were connected to 63 KVA DTR in the year 2005 by removing them from 100 KVA DTR and on request of the complainant, an additional load of 25 HP was sanctioned on 5.1.2007. It is the contention of the complainant that it had requested the opposite parties to connect the service connection of the complainant firm to 100 KVA DTR. The opposite parties prepared an estimation of `1,81,160/- for installation of 100 KVA DTR of which `60,580/- was towards service line charges, `12,500/- towards security deposit charges and `37,500/- towards load development charges.
10. The complainant has paid security deposit, load development charges and failed to pay the service line charges of `60,580/-. In compliance of order dated 24.7.2007 passed in I.A.No.180 of 2007 by the District forum for providing power supply to the complainant firm through 100 KVA DTR by replacing 63 KVA DTR, the opposite parties had provided the power supply through 100 KVA DTR. Prior to the receipt of application for additional load for 25 HP, the power supply was made to the complainant firm through 63 KVA DTR and by the additional load of 25 HP, the power supply was to be made through 100 KVA DTR for which necessary service line charges have to be deposited by the complainant rice mill. The complainant rice mill has not shown any reason to set aside the demand through memo dated 27.1.2007 and letter dated 13.7.2007 for `60,580/- towards service line charges. The complainant cannot contend that he can enjoy additional load of 25 HP and without paying any service line charges for the reason that it had gone on filing application after application with a request to sanction additional of 8 HP at the first instance and 25 HP subsequently. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the District Forum.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No costs. The opposite parties are permitted to withdraw the amount that was deposited by the complainant before this Commission.