ADV.A RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            This a complaint filed by the complainant  to quash the additional bill for Rs.37,805/- and other reliefs.

            The averments in the complaint can be breiefly summarized as follows:

The complainant having got electricity consumer No.6881 with 1^st opp.party used to remit the periodic electricity bills very promptly without any default.  The 1^st opp.party had issued a notice to complainant dated 2.3.2006 stating that, on 25.2.2006 the 2^nd opp.party had inspected the premises of the SSI unit and on inspection it is found that the incoming cable to 2^nd place of  the power metre due to contact resistance is not showing the actual reading in 2^nd phace and as such an additional bill is also attaching showing the actual consumption for the period.   An additional bill for Rs.37,809 dated 27.2.2006 was also issued to complainant along with notice.The APTS had visited the premises of complainant on 25.2.2006.   But they had detected lno irregularity in the premises and as such they returned from the premises also.   But after their return only it was found that they had cut open the seal of the C.T. board and there was came to the notice  of complainant only after they returned from the premises.   They had not prepared any mahazar.  Subsequently they had illegally and falsely made a wrong calculation and issued this bill for Rs.37,809/- to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting relief.

            The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not a consumer as defined in Section 2[1] [d] [2] of Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint is to be dismissed in limine.  The Anti Power Theft Squad had inspected the above premises on 25.2.2006.  On checking the meter provided in the Milage Rubber Industries, it was seen that the voltage at B phase was 55 volts instead of the 220 volts shown in the cut out of the same phase.  Hence a demand of Rs.37,805/- was raised for the unrecorded portion of energy through B phase equivalent of half of the recorded consumption for a period of previous six months.  The site mahazar Ext. P1 show that the foreman of the firm sri.,S. Manilal was present during inspection and he was convinced with all the facts by the inspecting authorities. Finally one among the public presents there Sri.Sunil Kumar.K, Santha Bhavanam, Eravipuram witnessed the Mahasars.The consumer lhas not been penalized for any theft or illegal activities.   The cause of low voltage is due to the high contact resistance developed in the terminals.All these can happen gradually in a long period of time and hence recording of actual consumption was decreased proportionally.  These opp.parties have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice so as to question the issuancece of statutory bills to the complainant in a consumer forum.   So the complainant is not maintainable in law and it is liable to be dismissed.

Points that would arise for consideration 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 and P2 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1  and 2  are examined.   Exts. D1 is marked

Points:

            Complainant’s case is that the 1^st opp.party issued  a notice along  with an additional bill for Rs.37,809/-  in respect of an inspection done lby APTS in the premises of the SSI unit.  According to complainant opp.parties had illegally and falsely made a wrong calculation and issued the additional bill for Rs.37,809/- to the complainant.   Opp.party’s contention is that the APTS had inspected the above premises and on checking the meter it was seen that the voltage at B phase was 55 volts instead of the 220 volts shown in the cut out of the same phase.  The cause of low voltage is due to the high  contact resistance developed in the terminals.

            The opp.parties first contention is that the complainant is not a consumer  as defined in section 2 [1] [d] [2] of Consumer Protection Act because the complainant is running a profit making business by engaging labours.   According to the complainant he is the proprietor of the industry and  he himself is also doing the profession as technician in the industry.   Hence the complainant comes a consumer as defined in section 2[1][d][2] of Consumer Protection Act.  In this case the opp.parties are claiming the additional bill only on the basis of Ext.D1.  Here the question to be decided  is that whether the opp.parties had proved Ext. D1 undoubtedly.   According to opp.parties the Sub EngineerDW.2 prepared Ext. D1 at the premises on 25.2.2006 the inspection date itself. And in addition to opp.parties one among the public presents there Sri. Sunil Kumar witnessed the mahazar.  But the complainant did not examine the above mentioned Sunil Kumar for proving Ext. D1.   During cross examination of DW.2 he deposed that Forman  anjhlhjsRy clr\rjp\PUf\fjH  inspection rmf\fj Bb\bX aor\rkSegkA Qe\ej}k  But on verification of Ext.D1 it can be seen that the date put by witness in the mahazer is 26.2.2006.  Where as the alleged inspection was on 25.2..2006 and the opp.parties did not try to examine the said witness for proving their case.   From these it is presumed that  no site mahazer was prepared as alleged by opp.parties.  According to opp.parties the complainant lhas not done any theft or illegal activities.   DW.2 deposed that the non-reading happened due to the use of two metals at terminal without any authority. And the opp.parties are the person to change the metal wire as and when required.  Opp.parties failed to take action for replacing the meter in the correct time.   This is a case in  which the opp.parties themselves are most negligent in performing theirs duties and they have penalized the complaint for no fault of his.

            Hence from the whole evidence before us, we are of the view that the opp.parties and failed to prove Ext. D1 and they are not entitled to claim the additional bill amount of Rs.37,805/-.  Here the complainant contended that he had remitted  1/3^rd amount before the Deputy Chief Engineer.   But no receipt is produced before the Forum.

            In the result the complaint is allowed, quashed the additional bill for Rs.37,805/- dated 27.2.2006 issued to the complainant.   The opp.parties are also directing to pay Rs.2500/- towards costed expense to the complaint.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2009

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. N. Gopinathan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. -  Disputed bill

P2. – Notice dated 2.3.2006

List of  witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1 – V. Vijayakumar

DW.2. – Arun Prasad

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. –Site Mahazar