Kerala

StateCommission

564/2001

The Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anil.G - Opp.Party(s)

Shaji Chellappan

01 Apr 2008

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 564/2001

The Secretary
The Asst.Exe.Engineer
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Anil.G
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU 2. SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. The Secretary 2. The Asst.Exe.Engineer

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Anil.G

For the Appellant :
1. Shaji Chellappan 2.

For the Respondent :
1. J.Robinson



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
                VASHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
 APPEAL NO.564/01
JUDGMENT DATED.1.4.08
PRESENT
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              -- MEMBER
SHRI.K.R.ABDULLA SONA                                      -- MEMBER
 
1. The Secretary,
    Kerala State Electricity Board,
    Vaidhuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
    Thiruvananthapuram.
 
2. The Asst.E xecutive Engineer,                         -- APPELLANTS
    Electrical Major Section,
    Thiruvalla.
        (By Adv.A.Rajasenan)
                 Vs.
Anil.G.
Kalarickal House,                                                         -- RESPONDENT
Thirumoolapuram, Thiruvalla.
 
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT
 
          The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.105/2000 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. Invoice issued by the appellants/KSEB was set aside by the Forum finding deficiency of service.
          2. It is the case of the complainant that he received an invoice dated.20.12.99 demanding to pay a sum of Rs.10215/- towards arrears allegedly from January 95 to July 99. According to him the meter was faulty and the readings taken are not correct.    In order to avoid disconnection, the complainant paid Rs.1715/- on 14.2.2000 and Rs.1700/- on 15.3.2000 as per the direction from the KSEB to pay the current charges amount in instalments.   He has sought for setting aside the bill  and also compensation of Rs.500/-.
          3. On the other hand, the KSEB has contended that the complainant was paying 30 units per month on the basis of Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 7/95 to 7/99.   In the meantime, the Board revised the tariff from time to time. The service connection was LT VIIA (commercial tariff). The petitioner did not request for change of tariff to domestic tariff. The meter was changed in 1/98. The average consumption during the previous period was 68 units per month. The next reading in 10/99 was 2670. The average consumption from 1/98 to 10/99 would work to 127 units. During the entire period the consumer was remitting amounts for 30 units per month only. There was no complaint that the meter is defective. Consumer was permitted to remit in six instalments.
          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts. P1 to P7 were marked.
          5. On  a consideration of  the evidence adduced we find that the version of DW1 as Asst. Executive Engineer that the petitioner applied for change of tariff to domestic in July 2000 has not been challenged in the cross examination. No evidence has been produced by the complainant to support the contention raised by the counsel herein that he had applied earlier for   change tariff. In fact, there is no pleading in this regard also. It is seen from Ext.P2 invoice that the total consumption for 51 months amounted to 4703 units for which up to 1/88   the units consumed is 2033 and there after the installation of new meter 2670. It is deducting the amounts paid at the rate of 30 units per month as per the Provisional Invoice Card that the balance is calculated in Ext.P2 invoice. Of course, there is delay in issuing the Ext.P2 invoice. There is extreme negligence on the part of the appellant in not issuing the arrear bills periodically. It is after 4 years, that the bill has been issued for a Lumpsum. There is laches on the part of the concerned officials and the staff. The appellants ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings against the guilty personnel in the service of the KSEB. We find that the complainant cannot be permitted not to pay the charges of electricity that he has consumed. In the circumstances, the order of the forum is setting aside.  Ext.P2 invoice cannot be up held. The order directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- as well as the cost also cannot be sustained.
          6. The complainant/respondent is directed to pay the balance amount due as per Ext.P2 invoice deducting the amount already paid Rs.3415/-. The appellant would not be entitled to claim interest or sur-charge with respect to the amount due as per Ext.P2 invoice. The respondents/complainants are directed to pay the amount within 2 months from this date.
          Appeal is allowed accordingly.
 
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU           -- PRESIDENT
 
 
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              -- MEMBER
 
 
 
SHRI.K.R.ABDULLA SONA                              -- MEMBER
 
 
 
s/L
         
 

 




......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN