23/10/2010.
JUDGEMENT
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant in OP.557/04 is that the complainant is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.297B. He is running a milma booth and paid the electricity bills promptly. He has paid Rs.99/- per month as per the provisional invoice issued from 1st respondent under the tariff LT7A. The electricity meter became fault and he had intimated the same to 1st respondent but no steps were taken. There was OP.1134/00 filed before the Forum to get restoration of electricity connection and while pending that OP the meter was tested and found faulty. That OP was disposed on 9/11/01 and appeal is pending from the order before the Hon’ble State Commission. From the spot bills issued after 17/9/01 it can be seen that the meter installed was defective. The respondents installed a defective meter willfully to harass the complainant. While pending appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission 1st respondent disconnected electricity supply. The respondents have no right to disconnect the power supply and issue bills while pending appeal before State Commission. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter of respondents is that the complainant is not a consumer of respondents and one Raman Ezhuthachan is the consumer under consumer No.B.297. So the complainant has no locus standy to file the complaint. The meter was not defective as stated by the complainant. As per the order in OP.1134/00 bill was prepared and sent by registered post to the complainant but it was returned. The complainant did not pay electricity bills issued from 3/00. The complainant is bound to pay the bill amount regularly. If the amount is not paid the Board has right to disconnect the power supply. From the readings of energy it can be seen that the complainant is using the connection as seasonal. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount regularly. Hence dismiss.
3. The case of complainant in OP.577/05 is that the complainant is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.B.297 and is conducting a milma booth and paid the electricity bills promptly. He has paid Rs.99/- per month as per the provisional invoice issued from 1st respondent under tariff LT7A. The electricity meter became fault and he had intimated the same to 1st respondent but no steps were taken. The respondents disconnected the power supply on 12/4/04 without any prior notice only to harass the complainant. There is OP.557/04 is pending. While pending the OP the meter was replaced by the respondents. A notice dated 30/4/05 demanding Rs.1,813/- was issued by the respondents. There is no details with regard to the period of consumption, how the amount was derived etc. So an application was submitted to the 1st respondent. But the respondents disconnected the power supply unilaterally only to harass the complainant. The 1st respondent has no authority to disconnect the supply while pending the case before the Forum. Since there was no supply the complainant was unable to conduct the business and occurred loss of Rs.500/- per day. Hence the complaint.
4. The counter of respondents is that the complainant is not a consumer of respondents and one Raman Ezhuthachan is the consumer under consumer No.B.297. So the complainant has no locus standy to file the complaint. The meter was not defective as stated by the complainant. As per the order in OP.1134/00 bill was prepared and sent by registered post to the complainant but it was returned. The complainant did not pay electricity bills issued from 3/00. The complainant is bound to pay the bill amount regularly. If the amount is not paid the Board has right to disconnect the power supply. From the readings of energy it can be seen that the complainant is using the connection as seasonal. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount regularly. As per the order of the Forum the connection was restored on 28/4/04. When the meter was inspected on 4/2/05 it was found that it is functionless. So a new meter was installed on that day itself. There were arrears of Rs.1,713/- and notice was issued by demanding the same. The arrears were not paid and so supply was disconnected. The complainant is liable to pay the charges for consumed energy. The complainant is failed to pay the charges only because of pendency of OP.557/04. There is no deficiency in service from the part of respondents. Hence dismiss.
5. The points for consideration are:
1) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
6. The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 series in OP.557/04 and Exhibits P1 & P2 in OP.577/05 and Exhibits R1 to R3 series in OP.557/04.
7. Both the OPs were filed against the same respondents alleging the deficiency in service committed by the 1st respondent. In both the cases the complainant prayed to get restoration of the electricity connection which was disconnected by 1st respondent. He also prayed that he is not liable to pay the bills amount which were issued illegally by 1st respondent.
8. In OP.557/04 it is stated by the complainant that he had a doubt with regard to the functioning of electric meter and he had informed the same to the 1st respondent but no action was taken. But the respondents stated that the meter was replaced due to defects of the meter. According to them when the bill was issued as per order in OP.1134/00 the complainant returned it by not accepting. They have produced the unclaimed registered letter and it is marked. The registered sent to complainant returned as not claimed. The from address is very clear and it was sent by 1st respondent. From this it can be seen that the complainant willfully refused the notice. In the counter respondents stated that the meter of complainant was faulty and the spot bills issued from 17/9/01 would show that the meter was defective.
9. The complainant produced Exhibits P1 to P6 series documents in support of his case. Exhibit P4 is the copy of report of Electrical Inspector, Thrissur. It is the report of meter test of complainant. It is reported that the meter is declared faulty as the percentage error at different load conditions were found beyond the limits as prescribed. The details of test report is there. It is an authoritative report and no objection is submitted by the complainant. This is a document submitted by the complainant and is marked. The report is dated 18/6/01, the day of test itself. When the meter became defective the Board can penalize the consumer as per the law. So there is no doubt that the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.
10. OP.577/05 is filed to get restoration of connection and also to restrain the respondents from issuing illegal bills. It is the case of complainant that while pending the orders in earlier OP the 1st respondent disconnected the power supply on 28/5/05. In order to get restoration of supply this complaint is filed. The documents produced are marked as Exhibits P1 and P2 are the only evidence adduced by the complainant. The respondents produced some documents and marked as Exhibits R1 to R3 series in OP.557/04. Exhibit R1 is a bill dated 17/2/04 and the amount sought to be paid is Rs.26,666/-. According to the respondents the complainant is liable to pay this bill amount. But there is no challenge against this bill and there is no doubt that the complainant is liable to pay this bill amount. The respondents also produced two cheques and submitted that the cost ordered in OP.1134/00 is the amount contain the cheques. The complainant is at liberty to collect the cheque from the Forum.
11.The main allegation of the complainant is that the meter was not faulty and the 1st respondent arbitrarily replaced the meter. But the report from Electrical Inspector would reveal that the allegations of complainant are untrue. Since there is no challenge against Exhibit R1 bill the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. The complainant miserably failed to prove his case. He vaguely prayed in both the complaints that to find that the complainant is not liable to pay the bills issued illegally. The illegal bills if any are not produced and not challenged.
12. In the result both the complainants are dismissed.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 23rd day of October 2010.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
In OP.557/04
Ext. P1 Copy of order of IA.428/02
Ext. P2 Copy of memorandum of appeal
Ext. P3 Copy of complaint No.OP.1134/00
Ext. P4 Copy of test report
Ext. P5 Copy of licence
Ext. P6 series Bills 7 Nos.
In OP.577/05
Ext. P1 Notice dtd. 30/4/05
Ext. P2 Copy of complaint dtd.19/5/05
Respondents Exhibits in OP.557/04 & OP.577/05
Ext. R1 Notice dtd. 17/2/04
Ext. R2 Lr. dtd. 17/2/04
Ext. R3series Two cheques & two unclaimed registered covers
(Id) President
