By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant is a consumer for electricity for agricultural purpose and domestic purpose under opposite party. It is stated that he belonged to non-payment group in regard to the connection for agricultural purpose, and that he was paying Rs.68/- and later Rs.79/- towards charges of domestic consumption. It is his say that the meter of domestic supply was faulty and though several complaints were given to opposite party requesting to charge the meter opposite party failed to respond. During 2002 November his domestic connection was disconnected. When complainant approached opposite party he was given instalment facility to remit the arrears. Complainant had signed this letter of instalment facility of three instalments without knowing it's contents. On paying the first instalment the supply was reconnected. Complainant later remitted the 2^nd instalment also. Though he repeatedly requested to change the meter opposite party did not heed to the request. Due to failure of opposite party to change the meter complainant did not pay the third instalment. During 2001 spot billing was introduced and opposite party issued bills assessing the consumption as 150 units per month arbitrarily. Thereafter it was changed as 160 units and then 250 until without any basis. On 25-10-2003 opposite party changed the meter and also disconnected the domestic connection. The agricultural connection was also disconnected on the same day. Complainant contends that bills issued towards domestic connection are illegal. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service praying for reconnection of both connections and to direct opposite party to consider the amount so far paid as charges towards the current consumption upto 25-10-2003 and in case complainant is liable to pay more to allow him to pay the amount by instalments without surcharge. Complainant also prays for compensation of Rs.50,000./- and for costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2. Opposite parties filed a joint version admitting the complainant to be a consumer for domestic and agricultural purpose. It is also admitted that complainant is included in the exempted group for agricultural connection. Opposite party states that the domestic connected load initially was 1800 watts and at present it is above 2500 watts. The consumer was served with spot bill for 125 units per month by basing the average consumption for the connected load. The averment that complainant filed several requests to change the meter stating that the meter is faulty is denied by opposite party. That complainant had defaulted current charges of domestic connection from 1999. Even after repeated requests consumer did not pay the arrears and so the service was disconnected during 10/2002. Proper notice was given. Complainant applied for instalment facility which was allowed. That complainant was aware of the request for instalment facility and order to remit the instalments.. Total arrears with surcharge as on 11/2002 was Rs.7,839/-. The service was disconnected for non payment of charges. Agricultural connection was not disconnected. No requests were received regarding faulty meter or to change the meter. The meter was changed on 25-10-2003 as part of bulk changing of meters in the Section. Nearly 6000 meter were changed. Consumer has defaulted even the payment under Provisional Invoice card from 7/99 till 12.2000. That the complainant is liable to pay arrears. That there is no deficiency in service.

3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A5 marked for him. Opposite parties filed counter affidavit and Ext.B1 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

4. Complainant is aggrieved that his domestic and agricultural supply were disconnected illegally. He also alleges the meter to be faulty and that the assessment of current charges is made without any basis.

5. The complaint is resisted by opposite party stating that electricity charges of the complainant's connection are in arrears from July, 1999 and that supply was disconnected due to default in payment of charges. It is submitted that the arrears as on 11/2002 is Rs.7,839/- . Complainant does not have a case that he has made regular payments. No proper receipts to evidence the payment during the alleged period is produced by complainant. We are able to conclude that the supply was disconnected due to default in paying current charges and hence not illegal. Complainant alleges the meter to be faulty and that the charges assessed are not correct. It is stated by complainant that opposite party did not change the meter even after repeated requests. There is no iota of evidence to support this contention. As per Sec. 26 (b) of Indian Electricity Act, 1910, if the consumer disputes the correctness of the meter, he has to take necessary steps to refer the disptue to the Electrical Inspector. Complainant has failed to take any such steps. Therefore the contention of the complainant in this regard is also unacceptable. Though the complainant states that charges as per spot bills and Provisional Invoice card were assessed without any basis opposite parties have pleaded and affirmed that the charges were assessed taking average consumption basing upon the connected load which was originally 1800 watts and later increased as 2500 watts. Complainant has not specifically disputed the connected load of his domestic connection. Ext.B1 shows that from 2004 onwards the current charges of the complainant is more than Rs.1,000/- which makes the case of opposite party to be probable and true. On perusal of evidence adduced and materials on record we find that there are no merits in the contentions raised by complainant. It is amply proved that the disconnection was due to non-payment of electricity charges. The benevolent provisions of Consumer Protection Act cannot be misused to escape liability of paying electricity charges.

6. Complainant contends that his agricultural supply was also disconnected on the same day. Along with complaint I.A.226/03 was filed seeking interim relief for restoration of both these connections. On 13-11-2003 the domestic connection was ordered to be restored on payment of the third pending instalment. For reasons not candid from the said application or order there was no specific order dismissing or allowing the request for restorations of agricultural supply. It is the consistent case of opposite parties that the agricultural supply was not disconnected at all. Complainant relied upon Ext.A5 which is the photo copy of a letter issued by the Agricultural officer to opposite party to re-instate the complainant's agricultural supply. The date in this letter is unclear. Complainant has not specifically stated on which date it was issued, and on what cause it was issued. It is not brought out by specific affirmation that such letter was issued pertaining to the allegation of disconnection as contended in the complaint. Complainant has no case that he applied to Agricultural Officer to issue directions to opposite party to restore his agricultural supply. Whether Ext.A5 pertains to any other incident of re-instatement cannot be ruled out, due to lack of proper averments. Further complainant has not challenged the interim order in I.A.226/03 before higher Redressal Agency to have his agricultural connection restored if it at all it was disconnected as contended by him. No steps were taken by complainant in this regard, for more than five years. It has to be understood that complainant was satisfied with the interim relief passed in I.A.226/03. We therefore hold that agricultural supply was not disconnected as contended in the complaint. Even at the time of hearing it was submitted by opposite party that agricultural supply is not disconnected. Due to rival claims putforward regarding this issue and in the interest of justice we consider that if at all the agricultural connection is standing disconnected then it has to be restored and that such direction can be given to opposite party. From the above discussions we hold that complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour.

7. In the result, we dismiss the complaint and direct opposite party to restore the supply of the agricultural connection of the complainant forthwith on receipt of copy of this order; if it is not under disconnection for any legal reasons. First opposite party is ordered to file an affidavit before the Forum to this effect stating that there is supply of energy to the agricultural connection of complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which first opposite party shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) to the complainant.

Dated this 5th day of June, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Provisional Invoice card relating to consumer No.13129

Ext.A2 : Instalment details given by opposite party to consumer No.13129.

Ext.A3 : Demand and Disconnection Notice dated, 18-4-2001 for Rs.146/-

by opposite party to consumer No.13149.

Ext.A4 : Demand and Disconnection Notice dated, 17-10-2003 for Rs.520/-

by opposite party to consumer No.13129.

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 22-4-2008 by Agricultural Officer

to Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B., Edappal Section.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1

Ext.B1 : Consumer Payment History from 15-10-2004 to 28-02-2008

by opposite party.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER