ORDER
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complainant’s case is that she is a consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.12336. She is managing the firm as part of self employment to earn her livelihood. On 31/3/03 the respondents inspected the firm and alleged that one of the phase in the electricity meter is not working. The complainant was issued with a bill for Rs.10,875/-. The complainant remitted the bill with protest. Following this a bill dated 17/10/03 for Rs.120045/- was issued. The bill is issued without any basis. And when complained they reduced the bill to Rs.114487/-. It is also baseless one. The complainant complained against the bill on 25/10/03. But the respondents disconnected the supply without considering the complaint. The disconnection was even without giving any notice. Hence the complaint is filed praying for restoration of the supply and also to cancel the illegal bill.
2. The counter arguments are that the complainant is an industrial consumer and it is not true to say that the complainant is managing the firm as a self employment venture to earn her livelihood. In an inspection on 31/3/2003 it was found that one of the phase in the CT meter was not working. It was informed to the complainant’s husband as one of the phase was not working only 2/3rd of the electricity consumed was recorded. Accordingly a bill for Rs.10,875/- was given to the complainant. The complainant remitted the amount on the 3rd day of receiving the bill without any protest. The electricity meter installed at the complainant’s premises became defective on every six months. The complainant’s meter became defective on 7/2001 and it was replaced with a static meter on 27/7/2001. The static meter became defective on 12/2001 and it was replaced on 12/12/2001. Again the meter became defective on 4/2003 and replaced on 6/5/2003. After replacing the meter and considering the consumption of electricity for six months a bill for Rs.120045 was given. It is quite usual and also for the electricity consumed there. When the complaint against the bill was received it was verified and found an excess amount of Rs.5,558/- was billed. So a revised bill for Rs.114487/- was issued. The bill is issued as per the condition of supply of energy and since the bill was not paid the supply of electricity was disconnected. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are:
1) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2) Is the complainant liable to pay the Exhibit P1 bill ?
3) Other reliefs and costs?
4. Evidence consists of Exhibit P1, Exhibits R1 and R2 and the deposition of PW1 and RW1. Heard both sides.
5. The complainant’s case is that she was issued with the Exhibit P1 bill following an inspection by the respondents. Before issuing the Exhibit P1 bill the respondents issued a bill for Rs.10875/-. And the complainant remitted the amount with protest. The Exhibit P1 bill is issued without any basis and the complainant claims that she is not liable to pay the bill. The counter statement are that the complainant firm is a profit making one. So the complaint is not maintainable. During the inspection conducted at the premise it was found that one phase of the meter is not working and so a bill for Rs.10875/- was issued and the complainant paid it. The electricity meter became defective on every six months. After replacing the meter a bill was prepared on the basis of average reading for the six months. When the complainant complained against the bill the Exhibit P1 bill issued after reducing the excess amount. The Exhibit P1 bill is legally valid.
6. The question to be discussed first is maintainability of the complaint as it is raised by the respondents. The complainant has stated that the firm is managed as a self employment venture to earn their livelihood. But the respondent argued that it is a profit motive commercial establishment employing many workers. While cross questioning PW1 has stated that the matters of business are being looked into by her husband who can only reveal the facts about it. PW1 does not know whether they have got SSI registration. But they are paying income tax regularly. Workers are the complainant, her husband and his brother. RW1 has stated that the complainant firm is a bigger one. But it is not revealed that the complainant has employed many workers or they have many other business, so that they are not depending upon the business for their sole livelihood. Hence the complainant is considered to be a consumer as defined under Section 21(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. And the complaint is found maintainable.
7. The Exhibit P1 bill is issued after replacing the electricity meter installed at the complainant’s premises. The respondents have stated that the electricity meter installed at the complainant’s premises becomes defective regularly. The electricity meter was replaced on 27/7/2001, 12/12/2001, 6/5/2003 and 13/5/2003. The PW1 has agreed that the meter was replaced when it became defective Exhibit P1 bill is issued consequent on the replacement of the meter and considering the average consumption after the replacement. On a perusal of Exhibit R2 it is seen that the electricity meter was replaced on the above said dates. So the Exhibit P1 is issued as per the provision of supply of electrical energy and the complainant is liable to pay the bill.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed . There is no order for cost or compensation.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 20th day of July 2011.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibit
Ext. P1 Copy of bill for Rs.1,14,487/-
Complainant’s witness
PW1 - Jessy
Respondents Exhibits
Ext. R1 Copy of extract of meter reading register
Ext. R2 -do-
Respondents witness
RW1 – P.Jayachandran
Id/- Member
