Appeal No.25 of 2007

Between

Sri B.Subrahmanyam, Senior Citizen,

EWS 102, H.B.Colony, Moulali,

Hyderabad. ... Appellant

and

1) Assistant Accounts Officer/ERO/Habsiguda/APCPDCL/Hyd

2) Additional Divisional Engineer/Operation/Habsiguda /APCPDCL/Hyd.

3) Divisional Engineer/Operation / Habsiguda/APCPDCL/Hyd

4) The Superintending Engineer/Operation/R.R (North) /APCPDCL/Hyd

5) The General Manager, Customer Services/APCPDCL,

Corporate Office, Hyderabad … Respondents

The appeal / representation dated 06.06.2007 of the appellant has come up for final settlement before the Vidyut Ombudsman on 03.01.2008 in the presence of the appellant and 1^st respondent and stood over for consideration till this day, the Vidyut Ombudsman passed/issued the following:

O R D E R

This appeal arises against the order passed by the Forum for Redressal of Consumer Grievances of APCPDCL (for short, ‘Forum’) in C.G.No: 98/2006-07/ R.R.(North) Circle dated 28.04.2007.

2. In the appeal / representation, the appellant represented that:

(a) he received three notices from Assistant Engineer (Electrical) / Operation / Moulali, all dated 13.03.2007 stating that power supply to S.C.Nos. 1701-420, 1701-471 and 1701-495 has been disconnected for non-payment of dues, all for the month of February, 2007.

(b) however, according to him there are no dues in respect of the above mentioned service connections for the month of February, 2007 as he paid an amount of (i) Rs. 93/- on 01.02.2007 for S.C.No. 471 vide transaction number 4576 (ii) Rs. 380/- on 12.02.2007 for S.C.No. 495 vide transaction number 4577 and (iii) Rs. 451/- on 12.02.2007 for S.C.No. 420 vide transaction number 4578 in E-seva, Meerpet.

(c ) he filed a complaint before the Forum, before which the 1^st respondent filed counter. In the counter it was not mentioned any thing about dues for the month of February, 2007, but it is stated that cheque dated 28.12.2006 for Rs. 869/- was dishonoured. The letter sent by the 1^st respondent was received by the appellant herein on 12.04.2007. For the reasons best known to the 1^st respondent, he kept silent from 28.10.2006 to 12.04.2007 i.e., for three and half months. Whatever it may be, on 12.04.2007 itself, the appellant paid Rs. 888/-, including an amount of Rs. 19/-, as per the bill dated 05.04.2007. Excess amount of Rs. 19/- collected has to be returned to the appellant.

(d) had the appellant was informed of dishonour of cheque in January 2007, he would have made payment in that month itself, for which the Ombudsman is requested to take serious action. Dishonoured cheque No. 260837 dated 28.12.2006 for Rs.869/- drawn on Syndicate Bank and another cheque No.218967 dated 21.03.2007 for Rs.762/- drawn on HDFC Bank are laying with 1^st respondent. Dishonour of cheques does not amount of deficiency as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court as published in newspapers.

(e) Therefore, the appellant claims Rs. 19/- which was collected in excess, Rs. 1000/- towards cost of representation / appeal and Rs. 2000/- for causing mental and physical agony, as a penalty for imposing power cut though payment was made in time.

3. In terms of clauses 8(1)(c) and 11 of the Regulation No.1 of 2004, reconciliation meeting was held between the parties on 03.01.2008 at Hyderabad to promote a settlement by mutual agreement between the parties. The appellant and 1^st respondent were present. However, inspite of best efforts made by the Ombudsman, the representation / appeal filed by the appellant could not be settled by mutual agreement between the parties.

4. Hence, heard the parties on merits of the case on 03.01.2008.

5. The only grievance of the appellant is that excess amount of Rs. 19/- was collected from him in addition to charges for consumption of electricity. It is an admitted fact that cheque No. 260837 dated 28.12.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Mouali for Rs. 869/- and issued by the appellant towards electricity consumption charges in respect of three service connections for the month of December, 2006 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds.

6. The Forum disposed of the matter on 28.04.2007 stating that the action of the respondents in levying and collecting Rs. 19/- towards additional charges for belated payment is in order as per the General Conditions of L.T.Tariff.

7. It is relevant to state here that the Forum below while disposing C.G.No.98/ 2006-07 / R.R. (North) Circle issued certain directions in its order dated 28.04.2007. Direction No. 1 is as follows.

“When the payments are made by the Consumers by cheques and they are not honoured by their Bankers, the Respondent-I shall inform the consumer of such dishonour duly indicating the reasons thereof and follow the provisions of Section 56 (1) of the Elelctricity Act, 2003 before effecting disconnection”.

8. Eventhough, the above mentioned direction and the other directions are issued in general as a guidance to the respondents relating to collection of electricity bills through cheques to be issued by consumers and prospective in nature, Direction No.1 mentioned supra has a bearing on the facts of the case on hand. In this case there is no material on record to show that the 1^st respondent informed the appellant / the complainant about the dishonour of the cheque No. 260837 dated 28.12.2006. In fact, the specific contention of the appellant is that had he been informed about the dishonour of the cheque, he would have paid the amount of Rs. 869/- in the month of January, 2007 itself. Under the above circumstances, it would meet the ends of justice if the amount of Rs.19/- levied by the respondents towards additional charges for belated payment (in view of dishonour of cheque) is refunded to the appellant.

9. The other grievance of the appellant is that the dishonoured cheques are not yet returned to him by the respondents, eventhough the Forum below directed the 1^st respondent to return such cheques to consumers in general (Direction No.3). The 1^st respondent, who was present on the date of hearing on 03-01-2008 stated that he would return the dishonoured cheques pertaining to the appellant. Accordingly, 1^st respondent is hereby directed to return the dishonoured cheques issued by the appellant / the complainant if they are not already returned.

10. In the circumstances of the case on hand, the Ombudsman is of the view that the appellant / complainant is not entitled for other reliefs viz., Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of the appeal / representation dated 06.06.2007 and / or Rs. 2000/- for causing mental and physical agony as a penalty.

11. In the result, the appeal / representation dated 06.06.2007 of the appellant is partly allowed with a direction to the respondent(s) concerned to refund the amount of Rs.19/- which was levied and collected by the respondents towards additional charges for belated payment, to the appellant. The respondent(s) is at liberty to adjust the said amount in the ensuing bill to be issued in respect of any one of the three Service Connection pertaining to the appellant / complainant. The appeal / representation dated 06.06.2007 is dismissed with regard to other reliefs claimed by the appellant. The 1^st respondent is directed to return the dishonoured cheques issued by the appellant / complainant if they are not yet already returned and to obtain the receipt of the said dishonoured cheques from the appellant / complainant.

12. It is just and necessary to state here that in future the respondent(s) are directed to follow the directions given by the Forum below in C.G.No. 98 / 2006-07 / R.R.(North) Circle in all other related cases.

This order is corrected and signed on 9^th day of January, 2008.