By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> 1. Complainant is aggrieved that she is not liable to pay the revised bill issued by opposite party.<br /> 2. Opposite party filed version stating that complainant was served with additional bill for unauthorised additional extension. She preferred a Suit O.S.No.140/04 before Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi challenging the additional bill. While the Suit was pending opposite party issued fresh revised bill and therefore the Suit was dismissed. That complainant is liable to pay the revised bill.<br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of Ext.B1and B2 marked on the side of opposite party. No affidavit filed or documents marked on behalf of complainant. Issues:- (i) Whether opposite party has committed any deficiency in service? (ii) If so reliefs and costs.<br /> 4. Complainant alleges that on 17-7-2004 two persons who introduced themselves as employees of Kerala State Electricity Board came to inspect her house. That her daughter-in-law requested to show their identity cards. Since the employees were not in possession of identity cards. They went back and returned with Sub Engineer of Kerala state Electricity Board in the office jeep. On inspection opposite party found unauthorised extension and prepared a site Mahazar for the same. Accordingly complainant was served with additional bill for Rs.10,525/-. This bill was challenged in O.S.No.140/04. Thereafter opposite party issued revised bill as per prevailing rules for Rs.4500/-. Complainant has already remitted this amount. Ext.B1 is the revised bill Ext.B2 is the judgment in O.S.140/04. On behalf of the complainant her eldest son Sri.Chandran appeared on authorisation given by her. In the site Mahazar filed along with version it is seen that unauthorised extension is taken to the adjacent house. Sri.Kuttisankaran another son of the complainant resides in this house. Sri.Kuttisankran is the complainant in O.P;23/05 pending before this Forum. Both cases were heard on the same day. The allegations in both complaints reveal certain amount of hidden sibling rivalry. Complainant even though alleges a lengthy story of harassment by employees of opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove this. The submission by her son on her behalf to cancel Ext.B1 bill is unsupported by reliable evidence. Complainant has failed to prove any case in her favour and we hold that opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.<br /> 5. In the result, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.<br /> Dated this 13th day of February, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the revised bill for Rs.4500/- <br /> dated, 8-8-2005.<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the Judgment in O.S.no.140/04.<br /> dated, 16-8-2005.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />