BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 249/2002 Dated: 15..01..2009
Complainant:
Sivachandran Nair, Kulavarathalaikkal Veedu, Upaniyoor Desom, Pallichal, Neyyattinkara.
Opposite parties:
1. Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram. 2. Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. A. Robinson)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 15..11..2004 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 03..12..2008, the Forum on 15..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had filed an application before the opposite parties to transfer the meter bearing No.B.K 67 from the old building to another place for reconstruction of the old building. The said meter was transferred accordingly by the opposite parties and after reconstruction of the old building complainant applied for reinstallation of the said meter. Complainant was informed by the opposite parties to apply for installation of the new meter in the said building since the meter already transferred was very old. Accordingly complainant applied for a new meter and deposited the requisite amount. Complainant was permitted by opposite parties to use the old meter till the installation of the new meter and complainant was remitting the bill amount accordingly. Complainant received a notice dated 23..04..2002 for Rs.1,175/- from the opposite parties. Thereafter, complainant received another notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/-. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to collect charge from the complainant by quashing the bills issued by opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer No. B.K 67 is registered in the name of Sri. V. Ayyappan Pillai under domestic tariff 1(a) of Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram. Complainant filed a petition before the opposite parties for changing the meter from the old building to another place since he was constructed a new building. As per the petition the meter was changed. No permission has been granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. After constructing a new building, complainant applied for new service connection and remitted the required amount. Complainant used the energy from the old connection B.K 67 illegally and without any sanction from the opposite parties. A site mahazar was prepared by Sub Engineer with respect to the temporary connection illegally availed by the complainant. On the basis of the site mahazar the connected load of the complainant's newly constructed building was 1kw. A notice was served to the complainant directing to remove the unauthorised temporary extension and on the basis of the connected load of the new building a bill for Rs.1,175/- was issued to the complainant. The bill was issued on the basis of existing provisions of law and complainant is liable to remit the bill issued by the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, Exts. P1 & P2 were marked. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has been examined and marked Ext.D1. 1st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant.
5. Points (i) & (ii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had filed an application before the opposite parties to transfer the meter bearing No. B.K 67 from the old building to another place for reconstruction of the old building, that the said meter was transferred accordingly by the opposite parties and after reconstruction of the old building when complainant applied for reinstallation of the already transferred meter, complainant was informed by the opposite parties to apply for installation of the new meter in the reconstructed building since the transferred meter was very old. Accordingly, complainant applied for new meter and deposited the requisite amount, and opposite parties permitted the complainant to use the old meter till the installation of the new meter and complainant was remitting the bill amount accordingly. Main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite parties was that no permission was granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67, but complainant used the energy from the old connection B.K 67, illegally and without sanction from the opposite parties. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that during routine inspection it was found that complainant had taken unauthorised temporary connection from the said energy meter, that a site mahazar was also prepared by the Sub Engineer with respect to the temporary connection illegally availed by the complainant and that a notice was served to the complainant directing to remove the unauthorised temporary extension and on the basis of the connected load of the newly constructed building a bill for Rs.1,175/- was issued to the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of notice dated 23..04..2002 issued to consumer No. B.K 67. As per Ext.P1, on inspection of complainant's premises of consumer No. B.K 67, it is found that complainant has connected unauthorised additional points 1kw, it is highly irregular and violation of Indian Electricity Rules. Through Ext.P1 complainant was directed to disconnect the unauthorised additional points immediately and remit Rs.1,175/- within 7 days of receipt of the said notice. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 07..06..2002 for Rs.190/-. Another notice dated 01..08..2002 issued by the opposite parties for Rs.3,952/- is on the record, Ext.D1 is the mahazar dated 18..04..2002 prepared by the Sub Engineer, complainant never challenged the veracity of Ext.D1, which is seen prepared on the basis of mahazar. In his cross examination DW1 (1st opposite party) replied that complainant had applied for transfer of meter but not applied for extension, that while transferring the meter complainant was informed not to use supply from it. DW1 deposed that complainant needs to deposit minimum charge for connection alive. It is pertinent to note that complainant has not produced any document showing permission granted by the opposite parties for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. Submission by the opposite parties is that no permission was granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. The initial burden of proving the permission rests on the complainant nor does complainant challenge Ext.D1 mahazar. Hence complainant failed to establish deficiency on the part of opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that the bill dated 23..04..2002 for Rs.1,175/- and the bill dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/- was seen prepared on the basis of Ext.D1 mahazar dated 18..04..2002 prepared by the Sub Engineer. Wherein the Sub Engineer, on inspection, has estimated unauthorised 1kw connected load. We find the said estimate on 18..04..2002 may not be the same for other days. Since the above bills were prepared on the basis of estimate a lenient view is warranted in this case. While arguing the case, the complainant submitted that he would ready to remit Rs.1,175/- as per Ext.P1 notice dated 23..04..2002 instead of notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/-. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the interest of natural justice we are of the considered opinion that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to collect Rs.1,175/- from the complainant.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall remit Rs.1,175/- (Rupees One thousand one hundred and seventyfive only) (as per Ext.P1) to opposite parties. The notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs. 3,952/- (Rupees Three thousand nine hundred and fiftytwo only) issued by 1st opposite party is hereby quashed. The complainant and opposite parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs in facts and circumstances of the case.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No. 249/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter No.DB dated 23..04..2002 issued to the complainant subjected to unauthorised additional points
P2 : Photocopy of demand and disconnection notice No.238177
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : Rajesh
IV. Opposite parties documents:
D1 : Site mahazar dated 18..04..2002 from Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.No. 249/2002 Dated: 15..01..2009
Complainant:
Sivachandran Nair, Kulavarathalaikkal Veedu, Upaniyoor Desom, Pallichal, Neyyattinkara.
Opposite parties:
1. Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram. 2. Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. A. Robinson)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 15..11..2004 the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 03..12..2008, the Forum on 15..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had filed an application before the opposite parties to transfer the meter bearing No.B.K 67 from the old building to another place for reconstruction of the old building. The said meter was transferred accordingly by the opposite parties and after reconstruction of the old building complainant applied for reinstallation of the said meter. Complainant was informed by the opposite parties to apply for installation of the new meter in the said building since the meter already transferred was very old. Accordingly complainant applied for a new meter and deposited the requisite amount. Complainant was permitted by opposite parties to use the old meter till the installation of the new meter and complainant was remitting the bill amount accordingly. Complainant received a notice dated 23..04..2002 for Rs.1,175/- from the opposite parties. Thereafter, complainant received another notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/-. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to collect charge from the complainant by quashing the bills issued by opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer No. B.K 67 is registered in the name of Sri. V. Ayyappan Pillai under domestic tariff 1(a) of Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram. Complainant filed a petition before the opposite parties for changing the meter from the old building to another place since he was constructed a new building. As per the petition the meter was changed. No permission has been granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. After constructing a new building, complainant applied for new service connection and remitted the required amount. Complainant used the energy from the old connection B.K 67 illegally and without any sanction from the opposite parties. A site mahazar was prepared by Sub Engineer with respect to the temporary connection illegally availed by the complainant. On the basis of the site mahazar the connected load of the complainant's newly constructed building was 1kw. A notice was served to the complainant directing to remove the unauthorised temporary extension and on the basis of the connected load of the new building a bill for Rs.1,175/- was issued to the complainant. The bill was issued on the basis of existing provisions of law and complainant is liable to remit the bill issued by the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, Exts. P1 & P2 were marked. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has been examined and marked Ext.D1. 1st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant.
5. Points (i) & (ii) : It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had filed an application before the opposite parties to transfer the meter bearing No. B.K 67 from the old building to another place for reconstruction of the old building, that the said meter was transferred accordingly by the opposite parties and after reconstruction of the old building when complainant applied for reinstallation of the already transferred meter, complainant was informed by the opposite parties to apply for installation of the new meter in the reconstructed building since the transferred meter was very old. Accordingly, complainant applied for new meter and deposited the requisite amount, and opposite parties permitted the complainant to use the old meter till the installation of the new meter and complainant was remitting the bill amount accordingly. Main thrust of argument advanced by the opposite parties was that no permission was granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67, but complainant used the energy from the old connection B.K 67, illegally and without sanction from the opposite parties. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that during routine inspection it was found that complainant had taken unauthorised temporary connection from the said energy meter, that a site mahazar was also prepared by the Sub Engineer with respect to the temporary connection illegally availed by the complainant and that a notice was served to the complainant directing to remove the unauthorised temporary extension and on the basis of the connected load of the newly constructed building a bill for Rs.1,175/- was issued to the complainant. Ext.P1 is the copy of notice dated 23..04..2002 issued to consumer No. B.K 67. As per Ext.P1, on inspection of complainant's premises of consumer No. B.K 67, it is found that complainant has connected unauthorised additional points 1kw, it is highly irregular and violation of Indian Electricity Rules. Through Ext.P1 complainant was directed to disconnect the unauthorised additional points immediately and remit Rs.1,175/- within 7 days of receipt of the said notice. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 07..06..2002 for Rs.190/-. Another notice dated 01..08..2002 issued by the opposite parties for Rs.3,952/- is on the record, Ext.D1 is the mahazar dated 18..04..2002 prepared by the Sub Engineer, complainant never challenged the veracity of Ext.D1, which is seen prepared on the basis of mahazar. In his cross examination DW1 (1st opposite party) replied that complainant had applied for transfer of meter but not applied for extension, that while transferring the meter complainant was informed not to use supply from it. DW1 deposed that complainant needs to deposit minimum charge for connection alive. It is pertinent to note that complainant has not produced any document showing permission granted by the opposite parties for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. Submission by the opposite parties is that no permission was granted to the complainant for using energy temporarily from consumer No. B.K 67. The initial burden of proving the permission rests on the complainant nor does complainant challenge Ext.D1 mahazar. Hence complainant failed to establish deficiency on the part of opposite parties. It is pertinent to note that the bill dated 23..04..2002 for Rs.1,175/- and the bill dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/- was seen prepared on the basis of Ext.D1 mahazar dated 18..04..2002 prepared by the Sub Engineer. Wherein the Sub Engineer, on inspection, has estimated unauthorised 1kw connected load. We find the said estimate on 18..04..2002 may not be the same for other days. Since the above bills were prepared on the basis of estimate a lenient view is warranted in this case. While arguing the case, the complainant submitted that he would ready to remit Rs.1,175/- as per Ext.P1 notice dated 23..04..2002 instead of notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs.3,952/-. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the interest of natural justice we are of the considered opinion that it will be expedient and justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to collect Rs.1,175/- from the complainant.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall remit Rs.1,175/- (Rupees One thousand one hundred and seventyfive only) (as per Ext.P1) to opposite parties. The notice dated 01..08..2002 for Rs. 3,952/- (Rupees Three thousand nine hundred and fiftytwo only) issued by 1st opposite party is hereby quashed. The complainant and opposite parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs in facts and circumstances of the case.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad. O.P.No. 249/2002
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter No.DB dated 23..04..2002 issued to the complainant subjected to unauthorised additional points
P2 : Photocopy of demand and disconnection notice No.238177
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : Rajesh
IV. Opposite parties documents:
D1 : Site mahazar dated 18..04..2002 from Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
