Assistant Executive Engineer V/S V.L. Narayanappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/1507

V.L. Narayanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

08 Jul 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/1507

V.L. Narayanappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Assistant Executive Engineer						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(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

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2009 DISPOSED ON: 04.08.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 4TH AUGUST 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1507/2009 COMPLAINANT Sri. V.L. Narayanappa, S/o N. Vishwamurthy, Aged about 73 years, R/at No.10, Rangaswamy Temple Street, 2nd Cross, Bangalore 560 053. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), West 4 Sub Division, BESCOM, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate: Sri. B. VasanthKumar O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The grievances made out the complaint by the complainant with regard to the installation RR No.P-592 when he visited the office of Managing Director, AGM (Sudha Madam) told him that the matter was not such a nature to come that office as the complainant could get that matter cleared at A.R. Circle, but this OP filled clear that matter and made the complainant to suffered. OP in his affidavit filed in the earlier complaint filed by this Forum falsely alleged that the complainant without approaching the appellate authority has come up with this complaint before this Forum. Even after admitting the appeal the arrears were shown in the bills issued. After disconnecting supply of electricity and taking away the cut outs, in the bills, it is shown that the electric connection is active. After disconnection and taking out the cut outs reading shown was narrated in the letter dated 03.03.2006. After considering, the bill modified on 02.06.2009, but they made him to visit the office for a period 3 years 3 months for this work. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50/- for furnishing the details of 3 MMD, after 4 months, the same was furnished. In the complaint the details of earlier litigation with regard to the complaint filed in this Forum and the appeal filed in respect of back billing before the competent authority and its results are all mentioned. The complainant is aged 73 years and he has been made to visit the office at A.R. Circle for getting his monthly electric bills corrected to pay the bills as in every monthly bills, the arrears used to be shown; inspite the appeal filed before the competent authority and even after admitting the appeal after depositing 33% of the arrears of amount. 3. On appearance, OP filed his version contending that the complainant is registered consumer of electricity through electric meter bearing RR No.P-592 for the purpose of industry of power looms. The sanctioned load of the installation is 9 HP of 600 Watts for the purpose of running power loom. The said installation was inspected by the J.E. (E) O & M unit 13 on 25.09.2004 and found that the power supply sanction for the purpose of running industry was being misused for commercial purpose, hence the installation was back billed for a period of six months from 4/2004 to 9/2004 and demanded the payment of Rs.9,412/-. The complainant filed complaint No.1131/2005 before this Forum challenging the said back billing. The said complaint was dismissed on 25.11.2005 on the ground that there is a provision to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The General Manager (Electrical) (O & M) Bangalore, North Circle admitted the appeal filed by the complainant, on complainant depositing 33% of back billing charges. That appeal was disposed on 07.07.2007 rejecting the appeal holding that the back billing charges is partly correct and directed the Sub Division Office to collect the balance of back billing charges after deducting the deposits made by the consumer in this behalf. Accordingly a revised bill for a sum of Rs.3,542/- was given to the complainant, after revising the amount of Rs.14,961/- claimed on 17.08.2007 and Rs.3,775/- claimed on 28.05.2009. The complainant has given letters to the OP on 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 regarding to surrender the installation and again 15.09.2008 gave another letter requesting not to surrender the installation. Again on 27.07.2008 the complainant has given another letter requesting to test the meter as the same is not reading properly. The said meter was got tested by MRT Division on 05.01.2009, as they have not properly reported the percentage of excess reading of the meter; letter was addressed to MRT Division on 17.02.2009. Accordingly it was reported that there was only 12 units excess reading in the meter. As per the said report action was taken to withdraw the excess billing. This complaint is with regard to the back billing charges demanded by OP on 25.09.2004. With regard to the same the complaint No.1131/2005 filed before this Forum was disposed on 25.11.2005, but appeal filed by the complainant before the General Manager, Electrical (O & M), BESCOM, Bangalore was also disposed as per law on 07.07.2007. The complainant has not made out any case against the OP with regard to deficiency of service. OP is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. In the affidavit evidence by the complainant on 27.08.2009 it is stated that the appeal filed him was disposed of 07.07.2007. The deposit amount was adjusted in the bill dated 17.02.2009 nearly after 18 months of the disposal of the appeal. On 03.03.2006 he has lodged complaint regarding the defect in the meter of RR No.P-592. After considering his complaint the meter was replaced on 02.06.2009 i.e., after 3 years 3 months by making the complainant to visit the A.R. Circle office and the office of the General Manager. There is no provision to take such a long time that delay caused itself is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Even after admitting the appeal the arrears were shown in the bills issued, on account of the same the complainant was made to approach A.R. Circle office to get the bills corrected for a minimum amount and paid the same. Showing arrears in the bills issued is gross negligence on the part of the OP. To furnish the MMD details after depositing the amount of Rs.50/-. OP had taken 4 months by making the complainant visit to office. The installation RR No.P-592 was disconnected in the month of March 2005 and taken out the cut outs, but in the bills that installation was shown as active; the same is again the gross negligence of OP in his duty. OP has given all these troubles to the complainant only because in complaint No.1131/05, the complainant has made many allegations against him. 5. In the written arguments of OP, it is stated that the installation was serviced on 01.09.1965 with sanctioned load of 9 HP + 600 Watts for the purpose of running power loom under LT-5 tariff. Prima-facie the complainant is purchaser of electricity for the purpose of running power loom which amounts to manufacturing purposes. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The power supply sanctioned for the purpose of running power loom industry under LT-5 tariff was being misused for commercial purpose under LT-3 tariff, thereby causing loss to the OP. Accordingly the installation was back billed as per the provisions of section 42.01 and 42.02 of electric supply and distribution code for a period of six months from 4/2004 to 9/2004 and demanded payment of Rs.9,412/-. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on 25.11.2005 holding, that there is provision to file appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The appeal filed by the complaint disposed on 07.07.2007. On 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 the complainant gave a letters expressing his willingness to surrender the installation, again on 15.09.2008 he has given another letter stating that he is not willingness to surrender the installation. On 21.07.2008 the complainant addressed letter to OP requesting to test the meter as the reading is jumping. The meter was got tested by the MRT Division, who in turn have not reported the test report properly. The letter was addressed to Executive Engineer (Elecl) MRT Division on 17.02.2009. MRT Division again tested the meter on 27.05.2009 and reported that there was only 12 units excess reading in the meter, action is being taken to withdraw the excess billing. The letters dated 03.03.2006 and 16.08.2006 referred in the complaint are no way connected to this complaint. With regard to back billing charges demanded by the OP on 25.09.2004 the complaint filed was dismissed on 25.11.2005 and the appeal filed before the General Manager was also disposed on 07.07.2007. The complainant in his letters dated 03.06.2009 and 13.07.2009 requested for payment of interest at Rs.50/- per day for the amount refunded to him is not justifiable. Actually no amount has been refunded him, only excess amount shown in the bill has been withdrawn; this complaint is barred by limitation. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. 7. Written arguments filed by OP. Arguments heard on both sides. The points for consideration are: Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 8. We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties affidavit evidence and documentary evidence, we record our findings on the above points are: Point No.1:- Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant is the registered consumer of electricity through electric meter bearing RR No.P-592 obtained for the purpose of running power loom. The said installation was serviced on 01.09.1965 with a sanctioned load of 9 HP + 600 watts for the purpose of running power loom under LT-5 tariff. Merely because the complainant is the purchaser of electricity for the purpose of running power loom it cannot be said that the dispute relates to commercial transaction as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The main dispute is with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not attending the complaints of changing the electricity meter and providing the information required. 8. Earlier the complainant filed complaint No.1131/05 with respect to the back billing of the installation, the said complaint was dismissed on 25.11.2005 on the ground that there is a provision to file an appeal before appropriate appellate authority as per provisions of Electricity Supply and Distribution Code. Thereafter the complainant preferred appeal in respect of the back billing before the General Manager (Electrical) (CO & M) BESCOM, Bangalore North Circle and the said appeal was disposed on 07.07.2007 holding that the back billing charges claimed is partly correct and a direction was issued to the Sub-Division office to revise the bill. Accordingly revised bill of Rs.3,542/- instead of Rs.14,961/- was issued. 9. The complainant addressed letters to the OP on 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 expressing his willingness to surrender the installation. Again on 15.09.2008 he has given another letter informing the OP that he is not willing to surrender the installation. The main grievances of the complainant is though he has complained the defects in the meter as per letter dated 03.03.2006, but OP has not taken steps to replace the defective meter and only on 02.06.2009 the meter was replaced. OP has taken about 3 years 3 months to replace the meter as such the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant relied on Annexure 1 serial No.6 of Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission (Consumer Complaints Handling Procedure) Regulation 2004. Wherein it is stated that meter complaints to replace are to be attended within 10 days. It is contended that the complaint regarding the defect in the meter was lodged on 03.03.2006, but the meter was replaced only on 02.06.2009; for which the time stipulated under the regulations is only 10 days, the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is contended that because of the defective meter reading the back billing charges used to be shown in monthly bills; the complainant used to visit the office at A.R. Circle every month to get the bills corrected by deleting the arrears and was making payment. Thus the complainant in this old age of 73 years suffered mental agony and physical strain in paying monthly bills because of the negligence and hostile attitude on the part of the OP in not replacing the meter immediately after the complaint. 10. The learned counsel for the OP contended that the complainant through his letters dated 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 expressed his willingness to surrender the installation and again by his letter dated 15.09.2008 informed OP that he is not willing to surrender the installation. He has addressed the complaint only on 21.07.2008 requesting to test the meter as the reading is jumping. Thereafter the meter was got tested by MRT Division who in turn have not reported the test report properly. Then the letter was addressed to the Executive Engineer (Elecl) MRT Division on 17.02.2009. MRT Division tested the meter on 27.05.2009 and reported that there was only 12 units excess reading monthly in the meter, action is being taken to withdraw the excess billing. The meter was replaced on 02.06.2009; on account of the office procedure to be followed for replacing the meter some time was taken; the same does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our view the copy of the letter dated 03.03.2006 addressed to the OP by the complainant regarding the meter defects reveals that as per letter dated 15.12.2005 the installation RR No.P-592 is surrendered, but the monthly bills for minimum charges are being issued, the meter readers have brought to the knowledge that still the meter is showing the reading, there is a defect in the meter. Hence the amount paid towards payments of bills in respect of the said meter is to be refunded with regard to the excess units. From this letter it becomes clear that OP has already informed about the defective meter, but no steps were taken to replace the meter within reasonable time. Even assuming that as admitted by OP, the complainant by his letter dated 21.07.2008 requested to test the meter as the reading is jumping, OP has taken more than 9 months to replace the meter. The complainant was made unnecessarily to visit the office at A.R. Circle to get the bills rectified by deleting arrears and to pay the amount. Therefore OP was negligent in not attending the complaint for replacing the meter within reasonable time and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 11. The complainant by another letter dated 13.12.2005 requested the OP to furnish the details of 3 MMD deposit in respect of the installation and he is prepared to pay charges required for furnishing the information. By another letter dated 03.03.2006 the complainant has stated that on 06.02.2006 he has already deposited the charges required for furnishing the details of 3 MMD deposit, but the details are not furnished. Hence he requested to furnish the same. The deposit details were furnished on 16.08.2006, the complainant has produced the same. Thus it becomes clear that for about six and half months, the complainant was made to visit the office to get the details of 3 MMD deposits of installation. In not furnishing the deposit details within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 12. There is no material to show that the installation was disconnected so as to accept the contention of the complainant that inspite of disconnection of installation monthly bills are being issued showing installation as active. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant that inspite of appeal being admitted challenging the back billing; arrears were shown in the monthly bills issued. The appellate authority has not stayed the back billing as such the arrears used to be shown in monthly bills. 13. The complainant is seeking total amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation as he is aged 73 years and he was made to visit A.R. Circle office for 40 times and Nrupathunga Road office for 25 times. He has suffered mental agony, physical strain and monitory loss. In our view on account of OP not attending the grievances of the complainant; the complainant has to visit the office at A.R. Circle and Nrupathunga Road at this age of 73 years, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical strain and monitory loss. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of this order. Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of August 2010) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER s.n.m.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2009 DISPOSED ON: 04.08.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 4TH AUGUST 2010 PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1507/2009 COMPLAINANT Sri. V.L. Narayanappa, S/o N. Vishwamurthy, Aged about 73 years, R/at No.10, Rangaswamy Temple Street, 2nd Cross, Bangalore 560 053. In Person V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), West 4 Sub Division, BESCOM, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate: Sri. B. VasanthKumar O R D E R SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 2. The grievances made out the complaint by the complainant with regard to the installation RR No.P-592 when he visited the office of Managing Director, AGM (Sudha Madam) told him that the matter was not such a nature to come that office as the complainant could get that matter cleared at A.R. Circle, but this OP filled clear that matter and made the complainant to suffered. OP in his affidavit filed in the earlier complaint filed by this Forum falsely alleged that the complainant without approaching the appellate authority has come up with this complaint before this Forum. Even after admitting the appeal the arrears were shown in the bills issued. After disconnecting supply of electricity and taking away the cut outs, in the bills, it is shown that the electric connection is active. After disconnection and taking out the cut outs reading shown was narrated in the letter dated 03.03.2006. After considering, the bill modified on 02.06.2009, but they made him to visit the office for a period 3 years 3 months for this work. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.50/- for furnishing the details of 3 MMD, after 4 months, the same was furnished. In the complaint the details of earlier litigation with regard to the complaint filed in this Forum and the appeal filed in respect of back billing before the competent authority and its results are all mentioned. The complainant is aged 73 years and he has been made to visit the office at A.R. Circle for getting his monthly electric bills corrected to pay the bills as in every monthly bills, the arrears used to be shown; inspite the appeal filed before the competent authority and even after admitting the appeal after depositing 33% of the arrears of amount. 3. On appearance, OP filed his version contending that the complainant is registered consumer of electricity through electric meter bearing RR No.P-592 for the purpose of industry of power looms. The sanctioned load of the installation is 9 HP of 600 Watts for the purpose of running power loom. The said installation was inspected by the J.E. (E) O & M unit 13 on 25.09.2004 and found that the power supply sanction for the purpose of running industry was being misused for commercial purpose, hence the installation was back billed for a period of six months from 4/2004 to 9/2004 and demanded the payment of Rs.9,412/-. The complainant filed complaint No.1131/2005 before this Forum challenging the said back billing. The said complaint was dismissed on 25.11.2005 on the ground that there is a provision to file an appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The General Manager (Electrical) (O & M) Bangalore, North Circle admitted the appeal filed by the complainant, on complainant depositing 33% of back billing charges. That appeal was disposed on 07.07.2007 rejecting the appeal holding that the back billing charges is partly correct and directed the Sub Division Office to collect the balance of back billing charges after deducting the deposits made by the consumer in this behalf. Accordingly a revised bill for a sum of Rs.3,542/- was given to the complainant, after revising the amount of Rs.14,961/- claimed on 17.08.2007 and Rs.3,775/- claimed on 28.05.2009. The complainant has given letters to the OP on 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 regarding to surrender the installation and again 15.09.2008 gave another letter requesting not to surrender the installation. Again on 27.07.2008 the complainant has given another letter requesting to test the meter as the same is not reading properly. The said meter was got tested by MRT Division on 05.01.2009, as they have not properly reported the percentage of excess reading of the meter; letter was addressed to MRT Division on 17.02.2009. Accordingly it was reported that there was only 12 units excess reading in the meter. As per the said report action was taken to withdraw the excess billing. This complaint is with regard to the back billing charges demanded by OP on 25.09.2004. With regard to the same the complaint No.1131/2005 filed before this Forum was disposed on 25.11.2005, but appeal filed by the complainant before the General Manager, Electrical (O & M), BESCOM, Bangalore was also disposed as per law on 07.07.2007. The complainant has not made out any case against the OP with regard to deficiency of service. OP is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. In the affidavit evidence by the complainant on 27.08.2009 it is stated that the appeal filed him was disposed of 07.07.2007. The deposit amount was adjusted in the bill dated 17.02.2009 nearly after 18 months of the disposal of the appeal. On 03.03.2006 he has lodged complaint regarding the defect in the meter of RR No.P-592. After considering his complaint the meter was replaced on 02.06.2009 i.e., after 3 years 3 months by making the complainant to visit the A.R. Circle office and the office of the General Manager. There is no provision to take such a long time that delay caused itself is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Even after admitting the appeal the arrears were shown in the bills issued, on account of the same the complainant was made to approach A.R. Circle office to get the bills corrected for a minimum amount and paid the same. Showing arrears in the bills issued is gross negligence on the part of the OP. To furnish the MMD details after depositing the amount of Rs.50/-. OP had taken 4 months by making the complainant visit to office. The installation RR No.P-592 was disconnected in the month of March 2005 and taken out the cut outs, but in the bills that installation was shown as active; the same is again the gross negligence of OP in his duty. OP has given all these troubles to the complainant only because in complaint No.1131/05, the complainant has made many allegations against him. 5. In the written arguments of OP, it is stated that the installation was serviced on 01.09.1965 with sanctioned load of 9 HP + 600 Watts for the purpose of running power loom under LT-5 tariff. Prima-facie the complainant is purchaser of electricity for the purpose of running power loom which amounts to manufacturing purposes. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The power supply sanctioned for the purpose of running power loom industry under LT-5 tariff was being misused for commercial purpose under LT-3 tariff, thereby causing loss to the OP. Accordingly the installation was back billed as per the provisions of section 42.01 and 42.02 of electric supply and distribution code for a period of six months from 4/2004 to 9/2004 and demanded payment of Rs.9,412/-. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on 25.11.2005 holding, that there is provision to file appeal before the appropriate appellate authority. The appeal filed by the complaint disposed on 07.07.2007. On 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 the complainant gave a letters expressing his willingness to surrender the installation, again on 15.09.2008 he has given another letter stating that he is not willingness to surrender the installation. On 21.07.2008 the complainant addressed letter to OP requesting to test the meter as the reading is jumping. The meter was got tested by the MRT Division, who in turn have not reported the test report properly. The letter was addressed to Executive Engineer (Elecl) MRT Division on 17.02.2009. MRT Division again tested the meter on 27.05.2009 and reported that there was only 12 units excess reading in the meter, action is being taken to withdraw the excess billing. The letters dated 03.03.2006 and 16.08.2006 referred in the complaint are no way connected to this complaint. With regard to back billing charges demanded by the OP on 25.09.2004 the complaint filed was dismissed on 25.11.2005 and the appeal filed before the General Manager was also disposed on 07.07.2007. The complainant in his letters dated 03.06.2009 and 13.07.2009 requested for payment of interest at Rs.50/- per day for the amount refunded to him is not justifiable. Actually no amount has been refunded him, only excess amount shown in the bill has been withdrawn; this complaint is barred by limitation. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint. 6. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents. 7. Written arguments filed by OP. Arguments heard on both sides. The points for consideration are: Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3:- To what Order? 8. We have gone through the pleadings of both the parties affidavit evidence and documentary evidence, we record our findings on the above points are: Point No.1:- Affirmative. Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant is the registered consumer of electricity through electric meter bearing RR No.P-592 obtained for the purpose of running power loom. The said installation was serviced on 01.09.1965 with a sanctioned load of 9 HP + 600 watts for the purpose of running power loom under LT-5 tariff. Merely because the complainant is the purchaser of electricity for the purpose of running power loom it cannot be said that the dispute relates to commercial transaction as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The main dispute is with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not attending the complaints of changing the electricity meter and providing the information required. 8. Earlier the complainant filed complaint No.1131/05 with respect to the back billing of the installation, the said complaint was dismissed on 25.11.2005 on the ground that there is a provision to file an appeal before appropriate appellate authority as per provisions of Electricity Supply and Distribution Code. Thereafter the complainant preferred appeal in respect of the back billing before the General Manager (Electrical) (CO & M) BESCOM, Bangalore North Circle and the said appeal was disposed on 07.07.2007 holding that the back billing charges claimed is partly correct and a direction was issued to the Sub-Division office to revise the bill. Accordingly revised bill of Rs.3,542/- instead of Rs.14,961/- was issued. 9. The complainant addressed letters to the OP on 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 expressing his willingness to surrender the installation. Again on 15.09.2008 he has given another letter informing the OP that he is not willing to surrender the installation. The main grievances of the complainant is though he has complained the defects in the meter as per letter dated 03.03.2006, but OP has not taken steps to replace the defective meter and only on 02.06.2009 the meter was replaced. OP has taken about 3 years 3 months to replace the meter as such the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant relied on Annexure 1 serial No.6 of Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission (Consumer Complaints Handling Procedure) Regulation 2004. Wherein it is stated that meter complaints to replace are to be attended within 10 days. It is contended that the complaint regarding the defect in the meter was lodged on 03.03.2006, but the meter was replaced only on 02.06.2009; for which the time stipulated under the regulations is only 10 days, the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is contended that because of the defective meter reading the back billing charges used to be shown in monthly bills; the complainant used to visit the office at A.R. Circle every month to get the bills corrected by deleting the arrears and was making payment. Thus the complainant in this old age of 73 years suffered mental agony and physical strain in paying monthly bills because of the negligence and hostile attitude on the part of the OP in not replacing the meter immediately after the complaint. 10. The learned counsel for the OP contended that the complainant through his letters dated 02.06.2008 and 19.07.2008 expressed his willingness to surrender the installation and again by his letter dated 15.09.2008 informed OP that he is not willing to surrender the installation. He has addressed the complaint only on 21.07.2008 requesting to test the meter as the reading is jumping. Thereafter the meter was got tested by MRT Division who in turn have not reported the test report properly. Then the letter was addressed to the Executive Engineer (Elecl) MRT Division on 17.02.2009. MRT Division tested the meter on 27.05.2009 and reported that there was only 12 units excess reading monthly in the meter, action is being taken to withdraw the excess billing. The meter was replaced on 02.06.2009; on account of the office procedure to be followed for replacing the meter some time was taken; the same does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. In our view the copy of the letter dated 03.03.2006 addressed to the OP by the complainant regarding the meter defects reveals that as per letter dated 15.12.2005 the installation RR No.P-592 is surrendered, but the monthly bills for minimum charges are being issued, the meter readers have brought to the knowledge that still the meter is showing the reading, there is a defect in the meter. Hence the amount paid towards payments of bills in respect of the said meter is to be refunded with regard to the excess units. From this letter it becomes clear that OP has already informed about the defective meter, but no steps were taken to replace the meter within reasonable time. Even assuming that as admitted by OP, the complainant by his letter dated 21.07.2008 requested to test the meter as the reading is jumping, OP has taken more than 9 months to replace the meter. The complainant was made unnecessarily to visit the office at A.R. Circle to get the bills rectified by deleting arrears and to pay the amount. Therefore OP was negligent in not attending the complaint for replacing the meter within reasonable time and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 11. The complainant by another letter dated 13.12.2005 requested the OP to furnish the details of 3 MMD deposit in respect of the installation and he is prepared to pay charges required for furnishing the information. By another letter dated 03.03.2006 the complainant has stated that on 06.02.2006 he has already deposited the charges required for furnishing the details of 3 MMD deposit, but the details are not furnished. Hence he requested to furnish the same. The deposit details were furnished on 16.08.2006, the complainant has produced the same. Thus it becomes clear that for about six and half months, the complainant was made to visit the office to get the details of 3 MMD deposits of installation. In not furnishing the deposit details within a reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 12. There is no material to show that the installation was disconnected so as to accept the contention of the complainant that inspite of disconnection of installation monthly bills are being issued showing installation as active. There is no merit in the contention of the complainant that inspite of appeal being admitted challenging the back billing; arrears were shown in the monthly bills issued. The appellate authority has not stayed the back billing as such the arrears used to be shown in monthly bills. 13. The complainant is seeking total amount of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation as he is aged 73 years and he was made to visit A.R. Circle office for 40 times and Nrupathunga Road office for 25 times. He has suffered mental agony, physical strain and monitory loss. In our view on account of OP not attending the grievances of the complainant; the complainant has to visit the office at A.R. Circle and Nrupathunga Road at this age of 73 years, the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical strain and monitory loss. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of this order. Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 4th day of August 2010) PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER s.n.m.