Kerala

Malappuram

OP/02/13

P UNNEEN KUTTY , S/O AVERAN KUTTY - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASSIST. EXE. ENGINEER, KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

17 Dec 2007

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
Execution Application(EA) No. OP/02/13

P UNNEEN KUTTY , S/O AVERAN KUTTY
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

ASSIST. EXE. ENGINEER, KSEB
THE SECRTERY , KSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 2. K.T. SIDHIQ

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows: Complainant is the consumer of electrical energy supplied by opposite parties and his consumer number is 32 TKD On 17-5-2000 1st opposite party issued a bill for Rs.36,440/-. Complainant preferred O>P>No.156/2000 before this Forum praying to cancel this bill. Order was passed directing 1st opposite party to issue revised bill taking the consumption as 13556 units for the period 4/95 to 4/2000. Opposite party issued the revised bill for Rs.17,229/-. This bill is challenged on the ground that 1st opposite party has not deducted the amount paid by complainant during the period from 4/95 to 4/2000. If the amount paid is deducted complainant would be liable to pay only Rs.10,000/- and hence the complaint. 2. Opposite party No.1 has filed version for and on behalf of opposite party No.2 also. Appeal No.758/2001 filed by complainant above the order in O.P.No.156/2000 is pending. Revised bill for Rs.17,229/- was issued complying the orders of this Forum to take the consumption as 13556 units. Order in O.P.No.156/2000 was issued upon the affidavit filed by Assistant Executive Engineer. The amount paid by complainant for the period from 4/95 to 4/2000 was considered and deducted as 6000 units while arriving at the consumption of 13556 units. Complainant cannot claim deduction for the second time. The revised bill is proper and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.B1 to B4 marked on behalf of opposite parties. No documents marked on the side of complainant. No affidavits filed by either side. The points that arise for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so what are reliefs. 4. Admitted fact in this case is that as per order in O.P.No.156/2000 opposite party was directed to issue revised bill taking consumption as 13556 units. Complainant is aggrieved that while issuing this revised bill opposite party did not consider the payments already made by complainant for the period 4/95 to 4/2000. opposite party resist this for the reason that the order in O.P.No156/2000 was made mainly basing on the affidavit filed by Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala state Electricity Board, Perintalmanna. Ext.B1 is the detailed calculation statement of the revised bill. Ext.B2 is the affidavit filed by Assistant Executive Engineer in O.P.No.156/2000. Ext.B3 is the revised bill and B4 is the order in O.P.No.156/2000. In Ext.B2 5th paragraph opposite party has affirmed that the total consumption by complainant during the period 4/95 to 4/2000 is 19556 units, and after deducting 6000 units for which the complainant has already remitted current charges. Complainant is liable to pay only for 13556 units. Ext.B4 order is also based upon this affidavit to issue revised bill taking the consumption as 13556 units. Ext.B1 calculation statement and Ext.B3 revised bill shows that opposite party has deducted 6000 units and issued bill for balance 13556 units only. So the claim of the complainant to deduct the sum already paid is untenable. We do not find any merit in the prayer of the complainant. We hold that the revised bill issued by opposite party is proper and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. 5. In the result complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Dated this 17th day of December, 2007. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B4 Ext.B1 : Details of calculation statement. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the affidavit filed in O.P.No.156/2000 by 1st opposite party. Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the adjustment invoice dated, 10-10-2001 for Rs.17,229/- Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the order dated, 11-7-2001 in O.P.No.156/2000 C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER




......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................K.T. SIDHIQ