M/S Super Enterprises Rep. by Noorali S/O Habib Bhai Vs. Asst. Engineer (Operation) Northern Power Distribution Co., Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1110907
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnNov-16-2009
Case NumberF.A.NO.293 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.NO.27 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ADILABAD
JudgeTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER & SRI R. LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER
AppellantM/S Super Enterprises Rep. by Noorali S/O Habib Bhai
RespondentAsst. Engineer (Operation) Northern Power Distribution Co., Ltd. and Others
Advocates:Counsel for the appellant: Sri Mohd Muneeruddin, Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy
Excerpt:
oral order (r. lakshminarsimha rao, member) the appellant is the complainant. the complainant filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the order of the district forum allowing its complaint to the extent of waiver of arrears of rs.5,004.31 and disallowing the relief for compensation and costs as also relief for refund of the amount of rs.2,125.80. the factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal is that the appellants father was doing footwear business which subsequently was closed and business in electrical under the name and style of m/s super enterprises was commenced. on 8.11.1997 the appellant complained regarding non-supply of power upon which the line man had inspected the service connection and found that the service wire was damaged due to fall of a neem tree whereon the appellant filed w.p.no.9900 of 1999 in the high court of a.p. an application for interim relief filed in writ petition was dismissed. the appellant was paying minimum bills during disconnection period. the high court allowed the writ petition by a direction that the representation dated 11.11.1997 filed by the appellant be disposed of. in compliance of the direction of the high court, on 26.2.2003 power supply to the appellant premises was restored. the appellant had stopped paying the bill. on 16.3.2004 as the outstanding arrears was rs.5004.31p, his service disconnected. the total outstanding dues against the appellants service connection after deducting interest on security deposit by 1.5.2004 was rs.4997/- . from the date of restoration of power supply i.e., 26.2.2003 the respondents issued the bill dated 7.4.2004 for rs.4,805/- which included the dues of rs.3,954/-. in the subsequent bills, the arrears was included. the appellant submitted a representation dated 19.3.2004 to the respondents for adjustment of the amount of rs.1976/- to the bills and for deduction of the amount charged during the period of disconnection of power supply. the respondents gave a reply dated 30.3.2004 that the minimum bill during the disconnection period will be issued as per the npdcl rules. thereafter the appellant has filed the complaint before the district forum. during pendency of the complaint, the district forum directed for restoration of power supply to the premises of the appellant on 6.12.2006. the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his written arguments. the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for the relief prayed for? on 8.11.1997 power supply to the premises of the appellant was disconnected on account of a neem tree falling on the service through which the power supplied to the premises of the appellant. the appellant had stated that his representation for restoration of power supply was not considered by the respondents as a result of which he was compelled to file a w.p.no.9900 of 1999. in compliance of the direction of the high court, the respondents restored power supply to the premises of the appellant on 26.2.2003. the respondent had issued bills which included the minimum charges during the period of disconnection. the appellant has challenged the respondents power to collect minimum charges during the period of disconnection of power supply to his premises. the respondents submitted that they had charged the minimum amount chargeable during the period of disconnection as per the general terms and conditions of supply”. it is relevant to refer to rules 2 and 3 of the a.p.state electricity board (recovery of dues) act, 1984 which was relevant to the facts of the case as the relief sought for waiver of arrears charged during the period of disconnection of power supply was prior to 26.2.2003. rule 2 and 3 read as under: rule 2: ‘debtor means any consumer or other person by whom any dues are payable to the board. rule no.3 ‘dues means anys um payable to the board on account of a – b – c – d --,e— f) consumption of electrical energy supplied including the minimum charges payable after disconnection and other chares payable under the terms and conditions of supply. thus, in terms of a.p. state electricity board act, 1984, the respondents are entitled to collect minimum charges during the period of disconnection of power supply to the premises of the appellant. the district forum held that the dispute between the appellant and respondent was amicably settled whereby a sum of rs.5004.31p was waived. yet the appellant seeks by filing appeal for waiver of further amount of rs.2,125.80 and stating that the said amount was paid during the period of disconnection of power supply to his premises. a perusal of ex.a12 issued by the respondents shows that the power supply was restored to the premises of the appellant. an amount of rs.5,004.31 was outstanding against the service connection till 2004 and monthly minimum charges also required to be paid during the ud period as per the terms and conditions of npdcl. therefore, it is clear that the amount of rs.5004.31p excluding the minimum charges was the amount waived in view of the settlement made between the parties. the respondents are entitled to issue bills for the minimum charges payable during the period of disconnection. the amount of rs.2,125.85p was properly collected by them from the appellant. the appellant having entered into settlement for waiver of the amount of rs.5004.31p and having allowed the settlement recorded, has come in appeal seeking relief outside the scope of the settlement which by any means is not permissible. at this stage the appellant cannot claim the adjustment of rs.2,125.85 to the future bills and also he cannot be heard to claim any amount as compensation beyond the purview of settlement reached between him and the respondents. it is pertinent to note that the respondents have not preferred appeal in view of settlement entered into with the appellant. the waiver of amount of rs.5004.31p in terms of settlement is held adequate. the appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. in the result the appeal is dismissed. in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

Oral Order (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

The appellant is the complainant. The complainant filed the appeal being dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum allowing its complaint to the extent of waiver of arrears of Rs.5,004.31 and disallowing the relief for compensation and costs as also relief for refund of the amount of Rs.2,125.80.

The factual matrix leading to filing of the appeal is that the appellants father was doing footwear business which subsequently was closed and business in electrical under the name and style of M/s Super Enterprises was commenced. On 8.11.1997 the appellant complained regarding non-supply of power upon which the line man had inspected the service connection and found that the service wire was damaged due to fall of a neem tree whereon the appellant filed W.P.No.9900 of 1999 in the High Court of A.P. An application for interim relief filed in writ petition was dismissed. The appellant was paying minimum bills during disconnection period. The High Court allowed the writ petition by a direction that the representation dated 11.11.1997 filed by the appellant be disposed of. In compliance of the direction of the High Court, on 26.2.2003 power supply to the appellant premises was restored. The appellant had stopped paying the bill. On 16.3.2004 as the outstanding arrears was Rs.5004.31p, his service disconnected. The total outstanding dues against the appellants service connection after deducting interest on security deposit by 1.5.2004 was Rs.4997/- .

From the date of restoration of power supply i.e., 26.2.2003 the respondents issued the bill dated 7.4.2004 for Rs.4,805/- which included the dues of Rs.3,954/-. In the subsequent bills, the arrears was included. The appellant submitted a representation dated 19.3.2004 to the respondents for adjustment of the amount of Rs.1976/- to the bills and for deduction of the amount charged during the period of disconnection of power supply. The respondents gave a reply dated 30.3.2004 that the minimum bill during the disconnection period will be issued as per the NPDCL rules. Thereafter the appellant has filed the complaint before the District Forum.

During pendency of the complaint, the District Forum directed for restoration of power supply to the premises of the appellant on 6.12.2006.

The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his written arguments.

The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for the relief prayed for?

On 8.11.1997 power supply to the premises of the appellant was disconnected on account of a neem tree falling on the service through which the power supplied to the premises of the appellant. The appellant had stated that his representation for restoration of power supply was not considered by the respondents as a result of which he was compelled to file a W.P.No.9900 of 1999. In compliance of the direction of the High Court, the respondents restored power supply to the premises of the appellant on 26.2.2003. The respondent had issued bills which included the minimum charges during the period of disconnection. The appellant has challenged the respondents power to collect minimum charges during the period of disconnection of power supply to his premises. The respondents submitted that they had charged the minimum amount chargeable during the period of disconnection as per the General Terms and Conditions of Supply”.

It is relevant to refer to Rules 2 and 3 of the A.P.State Electricity Board (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 which was relevant to the facts of the case as the relief sought for waiver of arrears charged during the period of disconnection of power supply was prior to 26.2.2003. Rule 2 and 3 read as under:

Rule 2: ‘Debtor means any consumer or other person by whom any dues are payable to the Board.

Rule No.3 ‘Dues means anys um payable to the Board on account of a – b – c – d --,e—

f) Consumption of Electrical Energy supplied including the minimum charges payable after disconnection and other chares payable under the terms and conditions of supply.

Thus, in terms of A.P. State Electricity Board Act, 1984, the respondents are entitled to collect minimum charges during the period of disconnection of power supply to the premises of the appellant. The District Forum held that the dispute between the appellant and respondent was amicably settled whereby a sum of Rs.5004.31p was waived. Yet the appellant seeks by filing appeal for waiver of further amount of Rs.2,125.80 and stating that the said amount was paid during the period of disconnection of power supply to his premises. A perusal of Ex.A12 issued by the respondents shows that the power supply was restored to the premises of the appellant. An amount of Rs.5,004.31 was outstanding against the service connection till 2004 and monthly minimum charges also required to be paid during the UD period as per the terms and conditions of NPDCL. Therefore, it is clear that the amount of Rs.5004.31p excluding the minimum charges was the amount waived in view of the settlement made between the parties.

The respondents are entitled to issue bills for the minimum charges payable during the period of disconnection. The amount of Rs.2,125.85p was properly collected by them from the appellant. The appellant having entered into settlement for waiver of the amount of Rs.5004.31p and having allowed the settlement recorded, has come in appeal seeking relief outside the scope of the settlement which by any means is not permissible. At this stage the appellant cannot claim the adjustment of Rs.2,125.85 to the future bills and also he cannot be heard to claim any amount as compensation beyond the purview of settlement reached between him and the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not preferred appeal in view of settlement entered into with the appellant. The waiver of amount of Rs.5004.31p in terms of settlement is held adequate. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.