DOF.1 7 / 5 /04

                                                          DOO  /9/ 7 / 10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the 9th   day of July    2010

C.C.No.116/2004

Prof. M.G. Mary,

Kulathinal,

Kandoth P.O.

Payyannur.                                                  Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.P.N.Nambiar)

1. Asst.Execcutive Engineer,

    Electrical Major section,

    Payyannur.

2. Secetary,

    Kerala State Electricity Board,

    Vydhutibhavan, Trivandrum.                                                                      Opposite Party

   (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala)

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

                     This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to replace the defective meter, to set right the electric post standing towards the property of complainant and to pay Rs.14, 800/- along with interest and cost.

            The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of opposite parties having NO.12327 under 1^st opposite party. The meter was fitted on 12.1.98 and the monthly consumption was fixed as 250 units and it was reduced to 170 units during September 99 as per the request of the complainant and the meter reading showed average consumption of 160 to 170 units. The complainant reduced the use of electricity by using CFL Lamps and not using any electrical gadgets. The complainant noticed that the meter was working even when everything is switched off and hence she was convinced that the meter is defective and hence the complainant requested 1^st opposite party to replace the defective meter by a letter dt.17.8.01 and the meter was replaced by 1^st opposite party on  8.11.01. But this meter was moving faster than the earlier one. During 8.11.01 to 10.11.01, it had shown a reading of 35 units where as the earlier consumption as only 12 units. So the complainant issued a registered letter to opposite party to check and replace the new meter. Thereafter the complainant and her husband had contacted the  opposite party several times and the last one is on 20.4.04. But no action was taken by 1^st opposite party till to day. The meter reading continues to be high, 280 units on average current charge, an excess of Rs.300/- bimonthly and hence the loss sustained would be an amount Rs.5000/-. The attitude of opposite party is unhelpful and the complainant had to fight  out her case to get electric connection  as the department providing connection by 3 years and 4 months and the case for compensation  is pending before District  court, Thalassery.

            The electric post adjacent to the compound wall of the complainant is slanting and the degree of slanting has been increasing day by day towards the property of the complainant. If it is not put straight great damage will cause to the compound wall and loss to coconut and other trees. The complainant had sent a registered notice to opposite party on 29.4.04. Even though they received the same, no action has been taken so far. So the 1^st opposite party is  bent upon harassing the complainant in one way or other and a clear   cases of deficiency of service and the complainant had caused a loss of Rs.14,800/-. So both the opposite parties are liable to replace the defective meter, to set right the slanting electric post and to pay the above said amount of Rs.14,800/-. Hence this complaint.

            Upon receiving notice from the Forum opposite parties appeared and filed their version.

            The 1^st opposite party admits that the complainant is a consumer having No.12327amd the date of connection was 16.12.98. The 1^st opposite party further admits that as per the request of the complainant consumption was reduced to 170 units from 250 units. The meter was replaced on 8.11.01 and is now is good working condition. The opposite party denied the contention that even though repeated request they are not ready to replace the new faulty meter placed on 8. 11.01. The new meter was not faulty and it is in good working condition. The husband of the complaint had met the 1^st opposite party on 12.5.04 when  the opposite party conducted a site inspection along with sub Engineer in charge based on complaint filed by the complainant and upon that inspection it was  found that the meter was working in good condition. When the meter was subjected to preliminary test no fault was   detected when main switch was kept off. The meter showed correct recording of energy on the load checking also. Without hearing explanation given by 1^st opposite party, the complainant has been repeating the same allegation without any basis and it is to evade payment of current charges. As long as the meter is in good working condition, the consumption recorded will be billed and the consumer is liable to remit the current charges for the energy consumed. The meter installed at the premises of the consumer is being inspected by the spot billers at regular interval and recorded reading and the reading recorded by the spot bill is between 217 to 276 during 19.3.03 to 19.5.04 and it shows that the consumption is more or less uniform. Considering the connected load of 6870 watts (3 phase) also the consumption recorded by the meter at the premises of the complainant it is not high.  The consumer had a monthly consumption of 250 units during 1998 which was later reducing to 170 units in1999. The present monthly consumption is in between 125 to 135 units. If the complaint had persisting she could have filed a petition before the Electrical inspector to government who is the competent authority to decide the disputes on the meter under section 26(o) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and no such petition was filed by the complainant. Which would reveal that the consumer was aware of the proper working of the meter.

            The opposite parties always discharged their duties as per rules and regulations and the complainant dragging the opposite parties unnecessarily   into litigations. The complainant without availing statutory remedies unnecessarily filing complaints after complaints before consumer Forum, State Consumer Commission, and civil courts. As per the order of the Hon’ble state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the complainant was informed to remit the SC, CD and OYEC amount. But she was paid The amount only after filing execution petition and hence the delay was caused in giving connection.

            The particular electric post which is alleged to be in slanting position is situated far  away from the compound wall and other side of the road and all other lines passing outside the boundaries and along the property of Sri.V.N. Eripuram and will not effect complainant’s property in any way. If one post is a line is slanting the adjacent post will not exist intact since all poles in the locality were erected in the ordinary soil and post is provided with stay wire also. Based on the registered complaint the 1^st opposite party had conducted   a site inspection on 12.5.04 and reply was given to the complainant on 19.5.04. The opposite party discharges his duty properly and hence there is no deficiency of service or  unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parites and hence the complainant is not entitled to any remedy and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2.      Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

                        The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, Exts.A1 to A18 and B1.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            The complaint has been filed for seeking replacement of defective meter, straightening the slanting electric post and compensation. In order to prove her case, PW1 was examined and documents such as A1 & A2 letters DT. 7.8.01 and 10.11.01,A3 postal  acknowledgement  dt.16.11.01, A5 sketch issued by village officer dt.2.6.04, A6 letter by 1 opposite party dt.22.3.95, A7 letter dt.21.12.95, A8 order of CDRCdt.17.10.97, A9 letter dt.2.6.04, A10 to A14 acknowledgments dt.30.4.04, 3.5.04, 3.6.04, A15 to A17 invoices and A18 bills. The opposite party also produced Exts.B1 in order to disprove the case of the complainant.

            The complaint has been filed seeking replacement of defective meter, straightening the slanting electric post and compensation. But at the time of evidence the PW1 who is the husband of the complainant conceded that “ Fsâ-]-cmXn H¶p aoä-dns\ kT-_-Ôn-¨pT atäXv  t]mÌn-s\- k-T-_-Ôn-¨-Xm-bn-«pT ]cm-Xn-bp-­v. t]mÌv H¶p tdmUn-epT H¶p-a-sämcp t{]m¸À«n-bn-ep-am-Wv. t]mÌv Fsâ t{]m¸À«n-bn-e-Ã.-Fsâ aXn-en-t\mSv tNÀ¶Ã t]mÌv. sse³  Fsâ t{]m¸À«n-bnÂIqSn IS¶p t]mbn-cp-¶p. Ct¸.mÄ IS¶p t]mIp-¶n-Ã. From the above deposition it is clear that the complaint has given up his both complaint which is mentioned in the pleadings. But now he has put forwarded that Ct¸mÄ  ]cmXn t]mÌv IS¶p t]mb ka-b¯v Fsâ-a-c-§-sf-ÃmT apdn-¨v sIm-­n-cp-¶p. ac-¯n-sâ -sIm-T]v apdn-¨p. ]vfmhv Xp-S-§nb ]e ac-§-fp-sS-bp-T- sIm-T-]p-IÄ shdp-sX- ap-dn¨p amän. But she has not proved this before the Forum that she had sustained such and such loss due to the cut and removal of branches and leaves of trees. Even though she had taken steps for inspection by a commission she was withdrawn from it. The commissioner filed a memo stating that: “even though” I have contacted the counsel several times and the complainant directly, I came to know that the complainant is not interested in taking out commission. So there is no expert opinion  before the Forum to come to a conclusion that whether any damage was caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service or due to unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant failed to prove her case that she has caused damages due to the deficiency or illegal act of opposite parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed by her and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

            In the result the complaint dismissed. No cost.

                                     Sd/-                             Sd/-                Sd/-

President                      Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1 & A2 letters DT. 7.8.01 and 10.11.01,

A3 postal  acknowledgement  dt.16.11.01,

A4.Copy of the letter dt. 29.4.04 sent to OP

A5 sketch issued by village officer dt.2.6.04,

A6 letter by 1 opposite party dt.22.3.95,

A7 letter dt.21.12.95,

A8 order of CDRCdt.17.10.97,

A9 letter dt.2.6.04

A10 to A14 acknowledgments dt.30.4.04, 3.5.04, 3.6.04

 A15 to A17 invoices

 A18 bills

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.Copy of the letter dt.19.5.04 sent to complainant

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.K.C.Mathew

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur