ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
This complaint filed by the complainant for changing the electric connection, compensation and cost
The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:
The complainant had availed an electric connection bearing Consumer No.13651 from the opp.party for agricultural purpose The agricultural department was punctually depositing the complainant’s bill amount in KSEB. The electricity tariff was fixed LT V Agriculture tariff. The complainant got a bill bearing No.152 dated 6.10.2004 the complainant approached the opp.party and enquired about it. The opp.party replied that the complainant’s connection tariff is changed and included in LT VII A, because a residential building is constructing in the above property. The A drop of water from LT V connection was not used for the construction purposes. The Asst. Engineer was reluctant to accept the application of the complainant for restoration of LT V connection. On 29.1.2004 the complainant remitted Rs.995/- which is the bill amount and interest vide receipt No.282 and filed an application before the opp.party to restore the old tariff informed the complainant that the application was forwarded to the Executive Engineer. The complainant enquired the Executive Engineers’ office and obtained an information that so such application was reached there. The complainant again met the opp.party but he has no satisfactory reply about the application. On 22.12.2004 again the complainant filed another application . At that time he asked to deposit Rs.35/- towards C.F. charge and the complainant remitted it vide bill No.4364. Then the Sub Engineer inspected the plot and filed a report recommending the restoration of LT V connection. Several times the complainant approached the Asst. Engineer and Executive Engineer for necessary action. But no action was taken on the application. After several months the complainant received a disconnection notice dt. 7.7.05. On 21.7.2005 the complainant submitted a complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer sent the said complaint to the Asst. Engineer for his report and action. But this time the Asst. Engineer was not taken action. Thereafter one day the opp.party trespassed in to the complainant’s property forcibly opened the pump house and took the meter with out the knowledge and notice of the complainant and his family members. Then they according to their convenience a meter reading and sent it for RR proceedings on 12.4.2006 Executive Engineer sent a notice calling upon the complainant to remit a sum of Rs.3405/- before 28.4.06. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief.
The opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The consumer bearing No.13651 was an agriculture connection under LT V tariff in the name of Smt.B. Krishnakumari, Ramachandravilasam Kurumandal, Paravoor and was effect in 1999. The consumer was billed till 12/2003 under LT V tariff and has an arrear of Rs.333/- till that date. During 2/2004 it was noticed that the consumer misused the service connection given on purely for agriculture purpose, she was using it for construction purpose and hence the tariff was changed to LT VII A and was bill accordingly including fixed charge Rs.100/- The complainant remitted the bill dt. 6.10.2004 for Rs.947/- o 29.10.2004 vide Rt.No.282 including RF and SC –Rs.996/-] The complainant applied for tariff changing from VII A to LTV by remitting Rs.35/- vide Rt.No.111/4364 dt. 22.12.2004. The application for tariff changing was forwarded by Asst. Engineer, Paravoor to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Divisi9on, Chathannoor. The executive Engineer, Chathannoor has returned the application vide Lr.No.DB/tariff change/505/17.2.2005 to the Asst. Engineer, Paravoor for rectification as per Lr.No.PGRC/TVM/8/ASC/04-05/7122/21.12.2004 of Member Distribution and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant has not responded to regularize the irregularities and became a defaulter for more than six months on 1/2006 and dismantling notice dt. 28.12006 was served to the complainant Since the due3s had not been cleared the meter was dismantled on 28.2.02 and Revenue Recover Action initiated o The complaint was forwarded to Executive Engineer, Chathannor on 26.6.2006 in order to initiate Revenue Recovery Action with recoverable amount Rs.3405/- and RR action initiated vide RRC No.603/06/07. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party?
3. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 to PW.3 are examined. Ext. P1 series is marked.
For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.
POINTS:
Complainant’s case is that the proceedings adopted by the opp.party that the change of tariff of the complainant and dismandling of the meter is illegal. According to the complainant if any abnormality is detected in the metre, that should be immediately enter in the abnormality register. Opp.parties case is that after detecting the abnormal reading in the complainant’s meter, the complainant was given notice and bill was issued. When the complainant defaulted the payment of the bill, the service was disconnected and on expiry of six months after disconnection, the meter was dismantled and revenue recovery action was initiated.
There is no dispute that the connection given to the complainant was for agricultural purposes. Opp.parties contention that during 2/2004, the complainant misused the connection for construction purpose inadverse agricultural purpose. During the evidence the complainant admitted that construction work was going on the premises during 2004. For proving that from the complainant’s side PW.1 and PW2 are examined. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show how abnormal meter reading occurred in the metre Ext. D1 shows that abnormality noted in the complainant’s meter. Opp.parties case is that the complainant has not remitted the exorbitant bill. Hence they dismantled the meter and started revenue recovery steps. But Ext.P1 series shows that the complainant has remitted the excess bill on 29.10.2004 and filed application for changing the tariff. The opp.parties after receiving the bill amount and tariff changing application form, did not cared to change the tariff. After that on 18.7.2005 the complainant submitted a complaint before the Chief Engineer. Then also the opp.parties not cared to take any steps to care the complainant’s grievances. Instead of that the opp.parties dismantled the meter and started Revenue Recovery steps. Even though there is no cogent evidence to show that the abnormal meter was occurred due to construction work, the complainant has remitted the excess bill. After receiving the said amount, the dismantling of meter and initiating Revenue Recovery steps against the complainant is utter deficiency in service towards a customer. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief. Since the abnormal meter reading is not disproved by the complainant, she is liable to pay the excess meter reading amount.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part, opp.parties are directed to change the tariff of the complainant to LTV agriculture tariff on the basis of application of the complainant dated 22.12.2004 for the change of tariff. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant for the proceedings.
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011.
.
I N D E X
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant:
PW.1. K. Rajendran Pillai
PW.2. – Santhosh
PW.3. –G. Gopalakrishnan
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Copy of complaint dated 18.7.05
List of witness for the opp.party
DW.1. – Baiju Rasheed
List of documents for the opp.party
D1. – Abnormality Register
