31/12/2011
O R D E R
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complainant case is that he is a consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.2552. The complainant used to pay the bills issued by the respondents in time without fail. The complainant constructed a shed using Aluminium sheet attached to his residence for starting a curd-packing unit for his son. The complainant’s son got the registration but the licence to start business has not been obtained from Anthikkad Grama Panchayath. The business has not been started and the licence has not been obtained. The materials for starting the business were kept in the shed. And no application for getting the electricity connection was submitted. Meanwhile on 7/4/2007 two men from the respondents office came to the complainant’s house to check the electric connection load. They convinced that no additional load is used. But the 1st respondent issued a bill dated 12/4/07 directing to pay Rs.5112/- on or before 28/4/2007 failing which supply will be disconnected. The complainant was asked to pay the amount for electrical power load which was not at all used. In fact the business has not yet been commenced. So the bill happened to be issued for the reason that materials for starting the business is kept in the premises. So the bill issued by the 1st respondent is illegal land liable to be cancelled. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents filed a counter statement to the following effect. The complainant has a domestic connection vide consumer No.2552 and it is true that he remits electricity charges regularly. The inspection team attached to the respondent office inspected the premise and found that curd making machine and a packing machine were using in the shed attached to the residence. In addition to that it was also found that a freezer, plugs and lights were installed at the shed for using. These were made known to the complainant and the complainant signed in the mahazer prepared by the inspection squad. So a bill for Rs.5112/- was issued for the unauthorized consumption of electricity for months. The complainant appealed against the bill and the amount was reduced to Rs.3008. The complainant agreed to pay the amount. But he did not pay the bill as agreed. The complainant is misleading by stating that the appeal petition is pending. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are :
1) Is the complainant liable to pay the Exhibit R5 bill ?
2) Other reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 series, Exhibits R1 to R6 and the oral testimonies of PW1 and RW1.
5. The complainant’s case is that the business has not been started due to non-receipt of obtaining licence from the Grama Panchayath. But the materials for starting the business were kept in the temporary shed. So the complainant claimed that the Exhibit P1 bill is issued for the electrical load which was not at all used. He also claimed that Exhibit P1 bill happened to be issued for the reason that the materials for starting the business were kept in the premises. But the respondents have stated that at the time of inspection it was found that the curd making machine and packing machine were using in the shed attached to the residence. So unauthorized consumption of electricity was found out and Exhibit P1 bill issued. When the complainant filed an appeal against the bill it was reduced to Rs.3,008/- and Exhibit R5 issued to this effect. The complainant has agreed to remit it. Exhibit R1 is the mahazor prepared at the time of inspection. The complainant has signed in the mahazor. It has been stated in the Exhibit R1 that a machine for covering the curd has been found using. But the complainant denied the using of the machine while he was cross examining. In Exhibit R3 the complainant has repeatedly stated that the unit has not been started and machines were not connected. And no counter statement has seen in Exhibit R4. While cross examining RW1 has deposed that the machines were not working at the time of inspection. The amount in Exhibit P1 was reduced to Rs.3008/-. But the reason for reduction has not been stated in Exhibit R4 or Exhibit R5. If there was unauthorized consumption as alleged no reduction would have been made. The respondents have stated that the complainant agreed to pay the Exhibit R5 bill. But the PW1 has denied it. So the authorized consumption of electricity as alleged has not been established and there is no evidence in this regard. The request for appeal was to cancel the Exhibit P1 bill as the machineries were not connected and used. However the reason for issuing Exhibit R5 bill is not stated or established by the respondents. So the complainant is not liable to pay the impugned Exhibit R5 bill.
6. In the result the complaint is allowed and the Exhibit R5 is set aside. There is no order to compensation or cost.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 12th day of December 2011.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Bill dtd. 12/4/07
Ext. P2 Copy of lawyer notice
Ext. P3 series Receipts 3 Nos.
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – Raman Nambhoothiri
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext. R1 Copy of Mahazor
Ext. R2 Copy of bill
Ext. R3 Copy of lawyer notice
Ext. R4 Copy of hearing conducted on 30/4/2007
Ext. R5 Copy of revised bill
Ext. R6 Copy of Prodgs.
Respondents witness
RW1 – Thomas I.Kakkassery
Id/-
Member
