Kerala

Wayanad

109/2006

M K Mathew - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. Engineer, KSEB. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Feb 2008

ORDER


CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
consumer case(CC) No. 109/2006

M K Mathew
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst. Engineer, KSEB.
Asst. Executive Engineer
Secretary
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. SAJI MATHEW

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(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

By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows The Complainant is a consumer of electric connection with consumer No.1429 under domestic category. Before changing the consumption in to the domestic category it was in commercial category. While the consumption of the electricity was in commercial category the complainant received additional bill for Rs. 5,110/- on 08.06.2004 and on 14.9.2004 an another additional bill was given for Rs. 5,463/- on receiving this additional bill an application was given to the Opposite party to cut short the amount demanded by the opposite party. Instead of making any variation in the amount claimed the Opposite Party disconnected the electric connection. It caused heavy loss to the Complainant. The amounts in the bills in additions were prepared without any bonafied or upon verifying the actual consumption of the electricity. The additional bill given dated 14.9.2004 will not lie and it is to be quashed. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party not to collect the amount Rs.5,483/- and which is not legally due and recoverable. The Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.5,000/- towards the Compensation. 2. The Opposite Party has not filed any version and no evidence was tendered. 3. The points in considerations are: 1.Whether the Opposite Party has done any deficiency in service?. 2.Relief and cost. 4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked in support of the allegation of the Complainant. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 7.9.2004. The amount claimed as per this bill is 5,483/- out of which Rs.3,391/- is the short of assessment the bill in 7/04. The Complainant on examination also deposed that he is not in need of any other relief apart from calculating the penal charge only in 1 ½ time. The penal charge which is shown in the bill is 3 times. It is to be cut short in to 1 ½ time. The Opposite Party is not entitled as per the provisions to penalize the consumer with 3 time charge. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to collect only appropriate amount from the Complainant on the assessment of 1 ½ time as the penal charge. If any excess amount more than one and half penal amount collected in the way of electric charge from the complainant. That amount is to be adjusted to the future bill of the complainant. The Opposite Party is directed to comply with this within one month from the date of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of February 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBER: Sd/- /True copy/ Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. APPENDIX: Witness examined for complainant: PW1 M.K. Mathew Complainant Witness examined for opposite party: Nil Exhibits marked for complainant A1 Electricity Bill Dt. 6.7.04 A2 Copy of Electricity Bill Dt. 3.9.04 A3 Electricity Bill Dt.7.9.04 Exhibits marked for opposite parties. Nil




......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW