DOF 28.1.2009

DOO. 3.1. 2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                              Dated this, the 3^rd  day of January      2011

C.C.No.30 /2009

   K.Remeshan Nair,

   Kakkandiyil House,

   P.O.Kaviyoor, Chokli.                            Complainant     

   (Rep. by Adv.C.K.Ratnakaran)

1.Asst.Engineer,

   Electrical Section, KSEB,

   Chokli, Thalassery.

2.Secretary,

   K.S.E.B,

   Vaidyuthi Bhavan,

   Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala)                          Opposite parties                                                                       

          O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

          This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the amount of  ` 895/-  and  `30,247 spend for getting new electric connection along with  `5000 as compensation and cost.

          The case of the complainant is that he was a consumer of opposite parties having consumer number 2452. The Anti Power Theft Squad inspected the old residential building of the complainant and disconnected his electric connection and removed the meter alleging theft of electricity on 25.10.07 and issued an invoice for an amount of `4049 inclusive of  `795 towards cost of single phase electricity meter and reconnection charge of  `100. The complainant paid the amount on 26.10.07, the next day and contacted opposite party for reconnection. But they had denied reconnection and asked him to apply for new connection and because of his urgent need he applied for new connection. Accordingly the opposite party along with some officials inspected the house of the complainant and directed him to change the wiring of the house and then only they will certify the wiring of the house as fit for giving electric connection and hence he had changed the entire wiring by spending `30247. Above this he had paid `895 towards reconnection but the opposite parties denied reconnection without any reason. This act of opposite parties caused great mental agony to the complainant and all these was caused due to the deficient service of opposite parties by not giving reconnection. So the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

           Upon receiving the notice from the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The opposite parties admit that the electric connection having consumer No.2452 was used by the complainant even though it is in the name of one Padinjarekandy Sainaba. They further admits that Anti power theft squad inspected and a penal bill of `4049 was issued including cost of the damaged meter and prepared a mahazar and the meter was taken by them  into  custody. The opposite parties again admit that the complainant paid the amount and requested for reconnection. According to opposite parties they directed for rewiring, because it was found that the wiring of the premises was in a damaged condition and not fit for electric supply. More over the service connection in the above premises was availed 30years back i.e. on 8.12.78 with a connected load of 950 watts and wiring was done in old system and insulation of the wire was not sufficient for supply of current.

          The complainant after rewiring his premises submitted test report and connected papers and as per this the connected load of the consumer is raised from 950 watts to 3606 watts. Due to the enhancement in connected load, as per Rule the consumer has to execute the supplementary schedule to the service connection agreement. The service connection agreement was earlier executed by Mrs. Padinjarekandy Sainaba. So due to change in load the supplementary schedule of agreement and test report is to be signed by Mrs. sainabha. But the complainant himself had signed the test report and schedule to agreement and he was not ready to obtain the signature of Sainaba. Due to this reason the reconnection in consumer No.2452 was denied and the consumer expressed his willingness to take new connection. So the complainant had remitted an amount of 875/- for availing connection on out of turn priority and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. After rewiring the board was ready to give reconnection. But he failed to obtain the signature of Padinjarekandy Sainabha, the registered consumer. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

           On the above pleadings the following issues are raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

    Opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed in the

      Complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

                    The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 to B3.

Issue No. 1 to 3

          The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have not given reconnection of the Electric connection having consumer NO.2452 at Chokli, even though they have received reconnection charge and meter charge and instead of giving reconnection they have directed the complainant to change the entire wiring and even after rewiring the opposite parties have-not given the connection and because of this the complainant has incurred an amount of  `30247 for rewiring and  suffered mental hardship. In order to prove his case the complainant was examined as PW1 and produced Exts.A1 to A12 such as bill dt.25.10.07, receipt dt.26.10.07 for reconnection charge of `100/-, receipt for meter charge of  `795, letter to opposite party dt.27.12.07, postal receipt dt.27.10.07, bills for the amount incurred for rewiring, receipts issued by opposite party for  `1500 and for  `1200. The opposite parties also produced Ext.B1 to B3 documents bill dt.25.10.07 for `4049, inspection report of the premises of consumer No.2452 and site Mahazer.

          The opposite parties admit that the consumer No.2452 was used by the complainant. They further admits that Anti power theft squad inspected and issued a penal bill of `4049 for electricity theft and the meter was taken into custody on  25.10.07 by the opposite parties as per Mahasar. But according to opposite party once the connection is effected the consumer will be the custodian of the meter and damages if any caused the consumer have to remit the cost of the meter. But while going through Ext.A1 bill, which is for an amount of `4049, it is seen that `795/- is charged as cost of static meter and `100 is charged as reconnection charge and Ext.A3 is the receipt for meter charge. There is nothing is mentioned in the A1 bill that `795 is charged as value of the old meter. More over `100 is charged as reconnection for the disconnected one. It means that the opposite party has already charged reconnection charge  with penal bill  along with the charge of meter and if the contentions put forwarded by the opposite party that `795 is charged for old meter is correct, they should have charged, the value of new meter also in the bill. More over, the charge of the meter is already collected by opposite party and only after paying the charge of the meter, they will provide electric connection. So from the above discussion it is seen that an amount of `795 is collected as the charge of new meter.

          Yet another contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not given reconnection even though complainant  had done  the rewiring as per the direction of opposite parties and  deposited  1500, 1200 for new meter and new connection again. But according to opposite party they cannot give reconnection to the complainant because the complainant had raised the connected load from 950 watts to3606 watts and for which the signature of the consumer in whose name the connection is registered and the complainant has shown reluctance to get the consent of the above said registered consumer. But the opposite party has not produced any document to prove this contention. The Ext.A2, A3, A11 and A12 shows that the complainant has paid meter charge and new connection and reconnection charge to opposite party. Even though the opposite parties had received the above said charges, they have not given the reconnection or new connection within time. So there is deficiency on the part of opposite party for which they are liable to compensate the complainant.

          The complainant contended that he is entitled to get the amount incurred for rewiring of his house. But it is admitted by the complainant that the wiring was done long before. More over now he is enjoying the benefit of the rewiring . So he is not entitled to get any amount on that account. The complainant admitted that the squad had penalized him for theft of electricity and later on applied for new connection. The complainant deposed that “]pXnb  connection FSp-¡p-T-t]mÄ  \ÂtI-­p-¶-XmWv ]n¶oSv hm§nb connection and meter charge”. So he  is not entitled to this amount also. But the opposite parties have received `795 as meter charge and `100 as reconnection charge as per Ext.A2 and A3 bills. So the complainant is entitled to get refunded the above said amount of `895 from opposite parties. He is also entitled for compensation for the inconvenience caused due to the deficient service of the opposite parties and we assess `2000 as compensation and `500 as cost of these proceedings for which the complainant is entitled and hence order passed accordingly.

                   In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund `895 (Rupees Eight hundred and Ninety five only) along with `2000(Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and `500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order against opposite party as per provisions of consumer protection Act.

                                    Sd/-                    Sd/-                           Sd/-

                             President                Member                    Member

                                                  APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Demand notice issued by OP

A2.  Receipts issued by OP

A3.Interim receipt issued by OP

A4.Letter sent to OP

A5.Postal receipt

A6. Cash bill issued by Electric Associates, Mahe.

A7 to A9. Receipt issued by Lipy plastics, Mahe

A10.Cashreceipt issued by Sumesh dt.19.2.08.

A11 & 12.Receipt issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1.Copy of the notice issued to complainant amount of `.4049/-.

B2.Copy of  the inspection report dt.25.10.07.

B3.Copy of the site mahazar.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

                                                                    /forwarded by order/

                                                                      Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur