Kerala

Kollam

CC/08/298

Retna Kumari,Surya Oil Mill,Kilikolloor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section and other two - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2011

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station,Kollam
Kerala
 
Complaint Case No. CC/08/298
 
1. Retna Kumari,Surya Oil Mill,Kilikolloor
Kollam
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section and other two
Kilikolloor
Kollam
Kerala
2. Executive Engineer, Kollam Division
Kollam
Kollam
Kerala
3. Secretary, Vaidhythi Bhavan
Patton, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

 

            Complainant’s case is that she was running an oilmill at Kilikollor named Surya Oil Mill.   She has been a consumer of opp.parties.   Since the complainant has committed default for paying the electric charges on 16.8.2008 opp.party has dismantled the electric connection of the complainant. and issued a notice to pay Rs.6474/- as default amount.   The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount.  Hence filed this complaint for quashing the notice.

 

          Opp.parties filed  version contending, interalia, that the complaint  is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that the electric connection bearing consumer No.25048 under Electrical Section, Kilikolloor after executing the service connection agreement between Board and the complainant.   The complainant has not remitted current charges from 11/07 onwards notice was served as per rules prevailing in  Electricity Board and finally the service connection was dismantled on 16.8.2008. The minimum period of agreement for a weather proof consumer is two years from the date of connection.   The service connection to the complainant’s was effected during 4/2007 and hence she is liable to pay the minimum charges upto 3/2009.  Afteradjusting the CD of Rs.4000/- the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4715+surcharge.   The amount arrived by the opp.parties is legal and as per rules.    It is also submitted that a service connection bearing No.19911 was dismantled on 1.2.2006 as per the request of the consumer and also the CD during that period had adjusted.   A new service connection was effected on 13.4.2007 in same premises bearing No.25048.  The complainant came before this Forum with suppressing material facts of the case.      Here is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence the opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

 

Points that would arise for considering are:

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

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.  Exts. P1 to P3 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.

 

POINTS:

 

          Complainant filed this complaint for quashing the Bill dt. 1.7.2008 for an amount of Rs.5803/-  The opp.parties contended that the complainant failed to remit the electricity charge from 11/07 onwards and hence the service connection was dismantled on 16.8.2008.  According to opp.party the arrears of electricity charges from 11/07 to 8/08 amounting to Rs.6195/- and minimum charges from 9/08 to 3/09 amount to 2520.   After adjusting the CD amounting to Rs.4000/-, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4715/- with surcharge.   According to them the service connection bearing No.19911 was dismantled on 1.2.2006 as per the request of the  complainant and also the CD during that period was adjusted.   During cross examination the complainant admitted that the consumer No.11916 was disconnected as per her request and a new connection having consumer No.25048 was taken on 13.4.2007.   The complainant also admitted that a minimum guarantee agreement was executed and deposited Rs.4000/-.   According to the complainant there was  no due in paying the current charges.   During cross examination complainant deposed that the new business was carried on 1 year and 6 months.   As per Ext.P3 remittance details the complainant has remitted the electric charges upto 10/2007.  For further remittance the complainant has not produced any materials.  Without any materials  mere averments in the complaint cannot be accepted.   As per clause 15[b] of the conditions of Electrical Energy regulations, if any consumer terminates his agreement within the period of agreement, shall be liable to pay minimum changes for the rest of the period of the agreement.  Here the agreement period is 2 years.  From the evidence the complainant has remitted the electric charges upto 10/2007.  Hence after adjusting the CD of Rs.4000/- the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4715/- with surcharge.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party

 

         

In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

            Dated this the   28th     day of February, 2011.

 

                                                                                    :

 

                                                                                    .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. -  K.P. VIVEKANANDAN

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Bill dated 1.7.2008

P2. – Copy of License

P3. – Remittence details

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – J. Muraleedharan Achary                                                                                    

 

 

 

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.