By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Brief of the complaint is that the complainant has applied for electric connection before 2nd Opposite Party and he got electric connection on 10.1.2005 vide consumer No.10928. Before giving electric connection on 1.11.2004 The petitioner gave an application before Assistant Engineer KSEB, Meenangadi to keep his application in abeyance for 3 months since the complainant could not complete the building work but the Opposite Party did not consider the application. Even though he got the electrical connection on 10.1.2005 he did not use the electricity till the completion of the work. On 04.02.2005 he got a bill from Opposite Party No.2 directing him to pay Rs.167/- towards the electricity charges for the previous 4 months. As per the above bill Opposite Party charged three months electricity charge before giving the <br /> Contd....2)<br /> 2<br /> electricity connection. The meter installed was a defective one so he had given an application for changing the defective meter and the Opposite Party charged as per the defective meter. Thereafter on 28.2.2005 the Opposite Party disconnected the electricity for non payment of electricity bill. On 11.4.2005 the petitioner paid the entire amount in the office of the Opposite Party though he is not liable to pay the same. Even after receiving the amount the Opposite Party has not given electricity connection to the Complainant. This act of the Opposite Party amount to deficiency in service and the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant and he prays to give direction to the Opposite Party for electric connection to the Complainant, and also to refund the amount which he had paid in excess to the Opposite party along with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party entered in to appearance and filed version. In the version they stated that the Complainant had given an application for getting electricity connection at the office of the Opposite Party. The application was registered as per consumer No.10928<br /> on 01.12.2003 under normal W.P. Category. The service connection was effected on 04.10.2004 according to priority as per rules. The averment in the petition that the petitioner got electric connection on 10.1.2005 is denied. The averment in the petition that the petitioner had given a complaint to Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Meenangadi to keep his application in abeyance also denied by Opposite Party. Further stated that even though the connection was effected on 4.10.2004 the petitioner has consumed only 2 units of energy till date. They admitted that on 04.02.2005 a bill amounting to Rs.167/- towards electricity charges for the previous 4 months was issued to the petitioner. But it is denied that the bill includes charges for three months before giving electricity connection. The above bill was not paid hence the electricity supply was disconnected for non payment of current charges. They admitted that the Petitioner had remitted an amount of Rs.247/- on 11.4.2005 being the spot bill issued in <br /> Contd.......3)<br /> 3<br /> 2/2005 and 4/2005. On payment of the above amount the service connection was reconnected. But there after detail payment of spot bill issued from 6/2006 onwards is not remitted hence the service connection was disconnected on 23.7.2005. Further stated in the version that the Opposite Party has no objection in giving reconnection to the Consumer provided that the consumer has to clear all the arrear. The Opposite Party has not demanded any excess amount from the consumer. Hence the case may be dismissed as not maintainable either in law or in facts caused on the reasons stated above.<br /> <br /> 3. The points in consideration are:<br /> 1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 2) Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The Petitioner filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A16. He was cross examined by counsel of Opposite Party. In the proof affidavit he has stated that he applied<br /> for electrical connection to his house and he got electric connection on 10.1.2005 vide No.10928. He stated that on 01.11.2004 he submitted a complaint to the Opposite Party to keep his application in abeyance for 3 months as he had not completed the building work. Even though the electric connection was given on 10.1.2005 he has not consumed any electricity. On 4.02.2005 he got a bill for Rs.167/- for 4 months which includes 3 months bill prior to the electric connection. He found that the meter installed is a faulty one. So he filed a complaint before Opposite Party for changing the defective meter. On the basis of the complaint the Opposite party changed the defective meter and installed a new one. While so on 08.02.2005 the Opposite Party disconnected the electric connection of the Petitioner due to nonpayment of electricity charge. There after on 11.04.2005 the complainant cleared the entire balance and there after no electric connection is given to the Petitioner till date. So there is <br /> Contd......4)<br /> 4.<br /> deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Since there is a dispute between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party regarding date of electric connection given to the Petitioner he has filed an I.A. 24/2007 directing Opposite Party to produce Electricity Connection Meter Reading C.P.L. Register for ascertaining the actual consumption of electricity but the same was not produced by Opposite Party Ext.A1 is the copy of the complaint submitted by the Petitioner to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kalpetta dated, 03.02.2005 requesting to redress his grievances. Ext.A2 is also a copy of the complaint submitted on 28.3.2005 by the Petitioner to the Deputy Chief Engineer requesting to settle the above matter. Ext.A3 is electric current charge bill for Rs.80/- issued on 02.04.2005. Ext.A4 is the electric current charge remittance receipt dated 11.4.2005 for Rs.86/-. Ext.A5 to Ext.A16 are the electric bills for Rs.80/- issued by the Opposite Party to the Petitioner from 6/2005 to 10/2007. Ext.A17 is the carbon copy of the petition submitted by the Petitioner to Opposite Party requesting to keep in pending the electric connection for 3 months. Hence he prayed for the direction to Opposite Party to reconnect his electric connection and refund the amount paid in excess to the<br /> Opposite Party. Opposite Party filed chief affidavit for himself and on behalf of Opposite Party No.2. In the affidavit he has admitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties having consumer No. 10928. The application was registered on 01.12.2003 and the connection was effected on 04.10.2004. The Opposite party denied the averments in the petition that the connection is given on 10.1.2005. He further denied the averments in the petition that the Petitioner submitted an application to Opposite Party to keep in abeyance his application for 3 months. He further stated that the electric connection is given after fulfilling all the formalities and after filing all the documents by the Petitioner. He further stated that a bill for Rs.167/- was issued to the Petitioner on 04.02.2005. That was the electric current charge for 4 months. The Petitioner was not remitted the bill hence the electric connection was disconnected. On 11.4.2005 the Petitioner paid Rs. 247/- and the connection <br /> Contd.....5)<br /> 5<br /> was reconnected. Thereafter the Petitioner failed to pay further spot bill the electric connection again disconnected on 23.7.2005. Further stated that the meter reading register has no connection with the issues involved in the above matter and the register is not traced out. <br /> Hence he could not produce the same. The Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief etc..<br /> <br /> 5. On going through the Chief affidavits, Cross examination and documents filed by Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that Petitioner is a consumer under Opposite Party vide consumer No.10928. Date of electric connection is in dispute. According to the petitioner the electric connection was given on 10.1.2005. But according to Opposite Party the electric connection was given on 04.10.2004. Ext.A17 shows that the Petitioner has given an application to the Opposite Party to keep in abeyance his electric connection for 3 months. It is seen that the application given on 01.11.2004. Ext.A1 and A2 are the Carbon copies of the application submitted by the Petitioner to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kalpetta requesting him rectify the date of connection given to him and take action to issue a bill for actual consumption by the complainant. The applications are seen submitted on 03.02.2005 and 28.3.2005 respectively. Ext.A4 shows that he has remitted Rs.286/- on 11.4.2005. Thereafter also the Petitioner has not given electric connection. According to Opposite Parties they have given reconnection after remitting the bill and disconnected on 23.7.2005. So there is serious dispute between them regarding date of connection and disconnection. So the petitioner has filed an I.A. 24/2007 to direct the Opposite Party to produce the meter reading register to know the exact date of connection, disconnection and reconnection. But the same is not produced by Opposite Party stating that the above register is noway connected with the case and the same is not traced out. There is absolutely latches on the part of Opposite Party for not producing the register to ascertain the actual date of connection, disconnection and reconnection. More over OPW1 who was examined on the side of the Opposite party is the present Assistant Executive Engineer. He was not here in 2005. He was in Trivandrum<br /> 6<br /> during that period. The Engineer who was acquinted with the facts of the case was not examined. At the time of cross examination OPW1 stated that meter reading register is there. But in the proof affidavit he affirmed that the above is not traced out. He further stated that there are so many registers in his office to show the details of connection etc.. But copy of the none of the register is produced.<br /> <br /> 7. Ext.A4 shows that the Petitioner has remitted Rs.286/- on 11.4.2005. According to the Petitioner he has not got reconnection after paying the arrears, even though he was not bound to pay the same. To prove the reconnection there are documents with the Opposite Party. That are not produced. So the conclusion is in favour of the Petitioner. Point No.1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result the Petition is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to give electricity connection to the Petitioner and to adjust 3 months electric charge to further future bill of the Petitioner and also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the Petitioner as cost. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 9th day of May 2008.<br />