Kerala

Kottayam

CC/09/220

T.M.Mani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst. Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2010

ORDER


KottayamConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Civil Station, Kottayam
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 220
1. T.M.ManiThengumthurathel(H),Kuzhipurayidomkara,Kottyam-4Kerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Asst. EngineerKSEB,ManarcaduKottyamKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 29 Apr 2010
ORDER

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.

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
 
CC. No.220/2009
Thursday, the 29th    day of April, 2010
Petitioner                                              :           T.M. Mani,
                                                                        Thengumthuruthel House,
                                                                        Kuzhipurayidam Kara,
                                                                        Manarcadu P.O
                                                                        Kottayam.
                                                                        (By Adv. P.C Chacko)
 
                                                            Vs.
Opposite party                                     :    1)    The KSEB,
                                                                        Vydyuthi Bhavan,
                                                                        Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
                                                                        Reptd. By its Secretary.
2)        The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section,
Manarcad.
 
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
 
            Case of the petitioner is as follows:
            Petitioner as a means of self employment is conducting  job work for Paragon Rubber Company. Income from the said business is the sole livelihood of the petitioner Electric connection to   petitioners premises is taken from the second opposite party. According to the petitioner officers of   opposite party regularly inspecting the electric meter  and allied   erected equipment is     the petitioner’s premises. On 16..7..2009 APTS squad inspected the premises of the petitioner. During   inspection squad find that there was a error of -8.70%   in the power meter of   petitioner. Based on the report opposite party issued reassessment bill for  an amount of Rs. 102611/-. According to the
 
-2-
petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill to the petitioner is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for an order canceling the bill Dtd: 17..7..2009 for an amount of Rs. 102611/- petitioner claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceeding s.
            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that   petition is not maintainable. According to   opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer because he is conducting a profit oriented business.   According to the opposite party as per the inspection of   APTS squad   on 16..7..2009 they found  that the power meter of the petitioner shows a difference of -8.7 % in the meter. Mahazar was prepared at the time of inspection and bill is issued for the consumed energy and  the petitioner is legally bound to pay   for the last 12 months. Opposite party states that  meter reading  of the petitioner  are not in a steady pattern. So,   faulty period could not be ascertain from the readings. Since the meter is installed before one year difference in the readings due to the error was not predominant, hence  bill was issued for last one year. So, according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii)                   Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1
document on the side of the petitioner an d Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.
-3-
Point No. 1
            Petitioner produced  notice issued by the opposite party to the petitioner Dtd: 16..7..2009 said document is marked as Ext. A1. In   Ext. A1 it is stated that on inspection of the APTS on 16..7..2009 they  found that power meter is showing an error of -8.70. Hence the energy charges for the last 12 months were reassessed and short assessment bill is being issued. Petitioner produced  copy of the disputed bill Dtd: 17..7..2009 said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 it is stated that the bill is issued for  CC arrears.   Point  to be decided is whether issuance of Ext. A2 bill is legal. According to the opposite party during   inspection of the APTS they found that the power meter is showing an  error -870 but the opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the meter of the petitioner was faulty. Opposite party produced the site mahazar prepared by the APTS squad. Said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 it is stated that during inspection it is found that the security seal of the meter was correct. Opposite party has no case that the meter of the petitioner was  tampered by the petitioner. Further more, according to the opposite party the fault was detected by using a standard meter tested in the Electrical inspectorate. But no evidence was adduced by the opposite party with regard to the same. Even though the opposite party has a case that meter of the petitioner was faulty. Opposite party has not sent the meter to an independent agency to examine the electrical meter. So, we are of the view that the act of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill without any evidence of faulty meter is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
 
-4-
Point No. 2
            In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result bill Dtd: 17..7..2009 for an amount of Rs. 1,02,611/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2010.
 
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-    
 
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-
                         
             
 
           
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner:
 
Ext. A1:            Notice Dtd: 16..7..2009
Ext. A2:            Bill Dtd: 17..7..2009
 
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1:            Copy of the mahazar
Ext. B2:            Short assessment bill Dtd: 17..7..2009
Ext. B3:            Copy of meter reading register.
Ext. B4:            Details of calculation.
 
By Order,
 
 
Senior Superintendent
 
amp/ 5 cs.

, HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT ,