COMPLAINT FILED: 31.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 27th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1703/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt. Padmini Kulkarni,<br /> Residing at No. 127, <br /> 19th Cross, 20th Main,<br /> J.P. Nagar 5th Phase,<br /> Bangalore – 560 078.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Assistant Executive Engineer,<br /> KPTCL., S-6, Sub Division,<br /> J.P. Nagar 1st Phase,<br /> Bangalore – 560 078.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the excess of amount collected through the back billing and pay a compensation and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the owner of house having ground floor and first floor situated at 19th Cross, 20th Main, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. It has electrical installation bearing No. RR 6SH24519. In the ground floor she residing with her family members, first floor is given on rent to the students. There is no separate meter for the first floor is concerned. Whatever the electricity demand bill is received it will be shared equally. With all that OP without giving an opportunity to the complainant on 09.04.2008 issued a demand bill for Rs.35,170/- on the basis of back billing for a period of 6 months alleging mis-utilization of the power supply as against the sanction conditions. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to withdraw the said arbitrary bill, went in futile. OP went to the extent of disconnecting the whole unit. Complainant was compelled to pay Rs.18,000/-, thereafter also OP disconnected the said installation. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances when she has suffered monetary loss and mental agony, that too for no fault of her, she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be as bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that she is the owner in possession of a house consisting of ground floor and first floor built in a site measuring 30 X 40 feet bearing No. 127 situated at 19th Cross, 20th Main, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore. She has got the electrical installation from the OP having RR No. 6SH24519. According to the complainant in the first floor some tenants are residing, in the ground floor she resides along with her family members. Actually there is only one meter for both the floors. The tenants used to share the monthly electrical bill equally, that was an understanding between the complainant and the tenants. <br /> <br /> 5. It is further contended by the complainant that she is prompt in making payment of the demand bills raised by the OP, she is not a defaulter. With all that suddenly on 09.04.2008 OP sent a letter demanding payment of Rs.35,170/- on the basis of back billing for 6 months on an allegation of mis-utilizing of a power. Unfortunately OP has not substantiated how complainant mis-utilized the power and what is the basis for them to come to the conclusion that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.35,170/- is not known.<br /> <br /> 6. It would have been more fair on the part of the OP under the natural justice to give an opportunity to the complainant by causing show cause notice why back billing should not be done for the alleged misuse of the power, unfortunately nothing has been done. OP has taken everything as granted and arbitrarily acted according to its own convenience, will and wish floating the usual norms and procedure issued the notice on 09.04.2008 calling upon the complainant to pay the said bill within one week otherwise disconnection will follow. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. OP went to the extent of disconnecting the whole installation. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. Though OP is duly served with a notice, remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. That means to say OP is admitting all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. All these acts and deeds of OP amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant being apprehended with the said disconnection did pay Rs.18,000/-. Though OP received the said amount, but the result is one and the same. Again they repeated their hostile act of disconnection. Under such circumstances the complainant must have naturally felt both mental agony and financial loss, that too for no fault of her. If the complainant has really violated any electricity supply rules in mis-utilizing the power, there is a procedure contemplated, without following the said procedure OP caused demand notice to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 8. Under such circumstances in our view such an act amounts to deficiency in service. Though OP has got a right to recover whatever the legal amount in due from the complainant, but without substantiating their action they cannot harass the consumer like complainant. OP ought to have been consumer friendly. Unfortunately when there is no allegation of default on the part of the complainant the action of the OP appears to be unjust and improper. Under such circumstances the complainant deserves some compensation. <br /> <br /> 9. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant along with a litigation cost. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (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 27th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />