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 15th day of October 2009 CC/256/2005 Kottayi Kalliyani, Parodiyil House, P.O.Malur,Sivapuram Amsom. Complainant (Tep. By Adv.P.K.Naushad) 1. Asst, Engineer, Mattannurt Electricity Office, Ner Mattannur Court, Palottupalli, Opposite party Mattannur. 2.Secretary,KSEB, Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram. (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to cancel the proceedings that shifted the connection of complainant from normal stage to minimum guarantee scheme with a direction to refund the excess bill amount collected from complainant along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: complainant is a consumer under opposite party bearing consumer No.3558 for domestic purposes. Complainant submitted application for electricity connection in the normal scheme. She got connection after four years. She had been paying Rs.93/- as electricity charge regularly. But on 5.8.05 she received a bill for an amount of Rs. 397/-. On enquiry she could understand that her electricity connection was included in the minimum guarantee s\scheme and that was the reason why the bill amount was increased. She was also told that she would be thereafter liable to remit this increased amount under the minimum guarantee scheme. She did not sign anywhere to apply for changing the scheme. It s only due to her financial inability that she had been waited for long 4 year applying under normal scheme for getting the electricity connection. She is not able to meet this much of amount. She pulls on her life by cooli work. Opposite party did not inform her anything regarding this before increasing this amount. It was done arbitrarily without sending any information. She has send two written complaints to authorities with respect to this action by the department but it was rejected without any consideration. She has never applied for changing the normal connection in to minimum guarantee scheme. Hence this application. In pursuance of the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The case of the opposite parties in nutshell is as follows: The complainant applied for electricity connection on 6.9.1999 and connection was given to her house No.47 of Maloor Panchayath on 7.12.2003. Bimonthly bills were issued and complainant, consumer had been paying the bill amounts. The complainant has executed the Minimum Guarantee Agreement for getting electricity connection to her house 7/47 of Maloor Panchayath on 30.1.2000. An application was submitted much earlier by the inhabitants of Vengukandy and Kavinmoola locality for the purpose of drawing electric line through their area on executing minimum guarantee agreement. Considering the application permission granted to draw the line on executing Minimum Guarantee Agreement. As per the above order Minimum Guarantee Agreement was executed in between 84 members of the locality and KSEB. Complainant Kottayi Kalliyani was executants No.8 of the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. She has executed the Minimum Guarantee Agreement for getting electricity connection to her house No.47 of Maloor Panchayth. After completion of drawing of line as per Minimum Guarantee Agreement the same was inaugurated on 5.3.2005. This fact was intimated to the complainant and she was requested to comply the stipulation in the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. The complainant has submitted a complaint dt.19.9.2005. After verifying the records proper reply was sent. If the complainant had any more complaint about the bills issued, she is free to approach the higher officials to get the problem solved. Without exhausting statutory remedies provided, she has directly approached Forum suppressing the material facts. Even the complainant has availed electric connection before charging of the lines as per Minimum Guarantee Agreement, she has to abide by the condition in the Minimum Guarantee Agreement since she is a signatory in the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. So she is liable to pay the amount agreed in the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. There is no willful negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency 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 consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, Documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A6 and B1 to B4. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Admittedly complainant is a consumer under opposite party with a consumer No.3558 for domestic purpose. The connection was effected on 7.12.2003. The complainant’s case is that she has applied for electric connection on 6.9.1999 and received connection after a long period of 4 years on 7.12.2003. Complainant pleaded that the monthly charge for electricity was Rs.93/- and the same had been regularly paid by the complainant. But it was on 15.8.05 she received a bill for an amount of Rs.397/-. Complainant states that on enquiry she could understand that her connection had been included in the list of connections under the Minimum Guarantee scheme and she is bound to pay this charge permanently thereafter. The specific case of the complainant is that she got connection only on regular scheme. She has never applied for changing the normal connection into Minimum Guarantee scheme. So that there is no liability on the part of the complainant to pay the increased charge. The opposite party contended that the complainant Smt.Kalliyani executed minimum Guarantee Agreement for getting electricity connection to her house 7/47 of Maloor Panchayath. She was executants No.8. Opposite party further contended that even though Smt.Kalliyani has got electrical connection in general category she is bound to act as per the terms of MGA. Thus it is evident that complainant got connection in general category. Complainant has the case that she has applied for connection on 6.9.1999. That is not denied by opposite parties. Thus there is nothing wrong to assume that the complainant was given the connection upon the application submitted on 6.9.1999. Ext.A1 is the consumer Registration Card. This is an authoritative document of electric connection. Page 4 of the document Ext.A1 clearly reveals that the connection was sanctioned in General Category and the connected load recorded 1350. Ext.A2 form No.8 (A) proves that the application for electric connection has been submitted on 6.9.1999. Ext.A3 & A4 are disconnection notices with receipts. Ext.A6 series are receipts. All these proves that she had been remitting Rs.93/- as current charge. Opposite parties case is that on 7.12.03 Smt.Kalliyani executed a MGA for getting electricity connection. It has already been proved on the strength of Ext.A1 and A2 that the electricity connection was sanctioned on 7.12.2003 to complainant for her house No.47 of Maloor Panchayth as per the application submitted by the complainant on 6.9.1999. More over, complainant has a specific case that she has not signed anywhere to apply for changing the scheme. Hence the burden to prove that the complainant has executed the Minimum Guarantee Agreement is lifted to the shoulders of opposite party. Ext.B1 is the copy of the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. It is seen that the name and address of the Kalliyani is type written as the 8th name on the left side of Ext.B1 and on the right hand side a thumb impression below which the name of Kalliyani is written in English. Now the question arose how it can be confirmed that this thumb impression is that of Kalliyani. The names written in English under the thumb impressions of some others are also seems to be the same handwriting. That only helps to understand that these thumb impression had been obtained by some organizers for and on behalf of all the consumers. But in any way it is not possible to make it assure that the thumb impression below which the name written in English against the name and address written in Malayalam is that complainant Kalliyani. No witness before whom she was put her thumb impression has examined to prove the signature. DW1 in his chief affidavit adduced evidence in tune with the pleadings of opposite party. But no where it is stated that Kalliyani put her thumb impression in his presence. At least the person who has written for name under the thumb impression should have been examined. Moreover, it should also make it assure that the thumb impression of Kalliyani has been obtained out of free will understanding the facts contained in the agreement. No where it is stated that the contents of the agreement were read over to her and she put her thumb impression by understanding the contents. Without making it assure by proper enquiry the complaint cannot be held liable to pay the amount under Minimum Guarantee Agreement. In the cross examination PW1 deposed that:”Fsâ t]cv Rm³-F-gpXn H¸n-Sm-dp-v. BZ-yT Rm³ H¸n-Sm³ XpS-§n-b- Im-eT apX t]sc-gp-Xn-bmWv H¸n-Sp-¶-Xp.-C-Xp-hsc Rm³Np-v-H¸v sh¨n-«n-Ã.Agreement  8mT \T-]À t]cv- F-sâ-Xm-Wv. H¸v Rm³ sh¨n-«nÃ. So also DW1 in his cross examination deposed thus: Ext.B1.ÂH¸v sh¨Xp tIm«mbn Ie-ym-Wn-bmtWm F¶p F\n¡v ]d-bm³ Ign-bn-Ã. Ext.B1 H¸v sh¡p¶ ka-b¯v B F{Kn-saâv Imc-y-§sf Ipdn¨v ]cm-Xn-¡m-cnsb t_m[-y-s¸-Sp-¯ntbm F¶p F\n¡v ]d-bm³ ]än-Ã. Even DW1 is not in a position to say that the thumb impressions seen in the Ext.B1 is that of the complainant Kalliyani. He was also not sure whether the contents of the subject matter had been explained to her or not. If the opposite party is in such a position who else can make sure that the complaint has put her thumb impression in Ext.B1. The opposite party failed to prove that complainant has signed in Ext.B1. Hence we hold that the amount demanded as per minimum guarantee agreement has not been legal. In the light of the above discussion and perusal of documents on record we are of opinion that there is deficiency in service on the apart of KSEB. The complainant cannot be penalized by compelling to make payment of electricity bill as per the Minimum Guarantee Agreement. Hence opposite parties are liable to maintain the name of the complainant in General Category and has to issue bills accordingly. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.250/- as cost of these proceedings. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to maintain the name of the complainant in General category and to issue bills for electricity charges accordingly and to pay Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the consumer registration card A2.Copy of the registration form A3 & 4.copy of the receipts and demand notice A5.copy of the notice dt.30/11/99isued by OP A6. Demand notice issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Copy of the minimum guarantee agreement B2.Copy of the letter dt.6.5.05 sent to complainant B3.Copyof the letter dt.3.10.05 sent to complainant B4.Letter sent by complainant. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1Raghvan Chingan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
