ADAPA LAKSHMIKANTHA RAO Vs. ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER,ELECTRICITY REVENUE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. The facts leading to filing of appeal the complaint are that the appellant was released 10HP capacity service connection for his agriculture purpose whereas he had used the power supply for 5HP motor; As such the appellant had made a representation to the respondents to derate the load from 10 HP to 5 HP whereon the respondents recommended to issue clearance certificate to derate the load. The appellant paid all the dues on 3rd May, 1994 consequently to which the respondent issued clearance certificate on the same date i.e., 3rd May, 1994 and to the effect the respondents had made an entry in the pass book issued to the appellant derating the load from 10 HP to 5 HP with effect from 3rd May, 1994. The appellant paid all the bills at the rate of Rs.115 per month for the subsequent months till the month of July, 1993. The respondents issued notice dated 30th November, 2002 claiming arrears of Rs.38,613/- stipulating for payment within a period of one month there from failing which the service connection of the appellant would be disconnected.

(2.) The respondent resisted the claim. The respondent no.2 filed counter and the other respondents adopted the counter filed by the respondent no.2. It was contended that to extend or derate the load the consumer has to apply to the assistant engineer concerned and on receiving no dues certificate from the Assistant Accounts Officer, the assistant engineer would inspect the service connection and submit his report to the Divisional Engineer and then the Divisional Engineer would sanction to extend or derate the load, as the case may be, and then inform the consumer to obtain a fresh LT agreement. In the case of the appellant, the respondent no.2, on receipt of the representation from the appellant, requested the respondent no.1 to issue the clearance certificate. The respondent no.1 had issued clearance certificate after collecting an amount of Rs.1, 694/- from the appellant. The respondent no,4 has not granted any sanction as there was no representation from the appellant to derate of the load. The respondent no.1 cannot alter the load of service in the ERO records without the sanction of the respondent no.4. As such the service in question was built with 10 HP in the records as per the tariff orders. The appellant has not paid the tariff charges till the month of October, 1996. The respondents issued notice during the year, 1989-99 claiming accumulated arrears of Rs.7, 752/- for the reason that the respondent no.4 has not granted sanction to derate the load. The respondents demanded for the arrears at the slab rate payable for 10HP motor. There was no irregularity or illegality in issuing the demand notice. The appellant is not a consumer until the arrears are paid to the respondents. Hence, requested for dismissal of the complaint.

(3.) The appellant has filed his affidavit to substantiate his case as also the documents which are not marked Exhibits for the reason not explained by the appellant.