By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. In a nutshell the facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is the consumer for supply of electrical energy under opposite parties. He is having eleven electric connections to the rooms of his building and consumer No.17173 is one among the connections. The said connection was used by Co-operative Bank Employees Union, Malappuram. That opposite parties disconnected the said connection without any<br /> <br /> notice. When complainant sent his agent to remit the current charges he was informed that there is outstanding balance of Rs.11,706/-. He alleges that he has not received any such bill. Complainant was doubtful regarding the consumption of energy and requested for a duplicate bill. Opposite party No.1 did not issue duplicate on oral and written request. Complainant then went to the office of opposite party No.1 and remained in his office. He refused to leave the office without getting a duplicate. Opposite party No.1 gave him a letter stating that original bill is served and therefore duplicate cannot be given. According to complainant the room was used for a short period by Escotel Company and they were willing to pay the amount if they received a copy of the bill. These facts were brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 and even then opposite party No.1 did not issue duplicate. Complainant was willing to pay the amount if he received duplicate of the bill. On 17-11-2001 opposite party No.1 issued a demand and disconnection notice for Rs.32,839/-. That opposite parties increased the Provisional Invoice Card (PIC) exorbitantly. Complainant disputes the bill amounts. Later opposite party issued duplicate on 21-12-2001. Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed joint version. It is admitted that complainant is a consumer. They also admit that on enquiry they understood the connection was used mainly by Escotel. They contend that the bill of 11/99 for Rs.11,706/- has been issued to the consumer. Since there is no duplicate it was not served. That opposite party was ready to issue copy of the bill and it was given on demand. The Provisional Invoice Card is increased as per the energy consumption of the consumer. The amounts are <br /> <br /> legally due to the Board. The levy of surcharge is legal because the bill under question was served and consumer is solely liable for the delay in payment. The cause-of-action arose only due to negligence of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. On the side of complainant Exts.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties. No oral evidence was adduced on either sides. The points that arise for consideration are :-<br /> (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. <br /> (ii)) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 4. The main grievance of the complainant is that he was not issued a duplicate of the electricity bill dated, 11-10-1999. Later duplicate was issued to him on 21-12-2001. Ext.A1 is this duplicate bill. To consider whether there has been unreasonable delay to issue Ext.A1 it is necessary to look into why the complainant was insisting to have duplicate bill. Complainant is the owner of the building to which eleven electrical connections are provided by opposite parties. The room with consumer number 17173 was rented to Co-operative Bank Employees Union, Malappuram. For a short period this room was rented to Escotel Company. The consumer number remains in the name of the complainant. Electric connection to this room was disconnected and when complainant made efforts to remit the amount he was informed that a huge amount of Rs.11,706/- is pending as arrears. Complainant did not receive any bill and so he requested for duplicate. Opposite parties refused to issue duplicate bill. Then <br /> complainant made a written request to issue duplicate. Ext.A2 is this request made on 23-7-2001. To this opposite party No.1 has given Ext.A3 reply declining the request for the reason that original bill has been served and duplicate cannot be issued. In Ext.A3 opposite party No.1 refers to receipt of Ext.A2 letter. Complainant was in need of a duplicate to get reimbursement of the amount from the tenant/Escotel Company. Escotel was willing to make payment and in fact could make payment only if they received the bill. These facts have been brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 by complainant vide Ext.A2. Still opposite party No.1 refused to issue duplicate. Thereafter on 17-11-2001 opposite parties have issued Ext.A4 demand notice. The amount as per Ext.A4 is Rs.32,839/-. Apart from electric charges Rs.13006/- is claimed as surcharges for delay in payment. Later, on 21-12-2001 opposite party has issued duplicate which is Ext.A1. Opposite parties have failed to explain why Ext.A1 was not issued even after receiving the written request stating the urgency and necessity. Once the amount of electric charges is assessed the same is required to be communicated to the consumer. This is done by serving the electricity bill (Adjustment invoice) to the consumer. So service of electricity bill is in a way performance of statutory duty. It is the duty of opposite parties to see that the bill is properly served on the consumer. That duty if not performed amounts to deficiency in service. In case any complaint of non-receipt of bill, opposite parties have to look into the matter and redress the grievance of the consumer. No sum can be claimed without proper demand. Consumer has a right to know the details of the payment he has to make. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence as to when and how the original bill was served upon the consumer. It is evident from Ext.A1, A2 and a3 that there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in issuing duplicate. A consumer cannot be left to the mercy of the officers of such monopolized services. Service rendered by Public departments/Boards has to be prompt, proper and dignified. Government owned and managed organizations must be more sensitive and accountable to consumers. Any amount of imperfection in the service rendered would certainly amount to deficiency in service. Complainant has approached the Forum after feeling exasperated and exhausted by the harassment of opposite party No.1. In view of the above, we hold that the act of opposite parties in not issuing duplicate within reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 5. Point (ii):- Complainant also prays to set aside and cancel bill of Rs.11,706/- and demand notice of Rs.32,839/-. He prays for issuance of fresh bill according to the meter reading from 4/98 till date of disconnection. Complainant has no case that the meter is faulty. No evidence is adduced by complainant to prove that the charges are not based on actual consumption of electricity. Opposite party has produced Exts.B1 to B3 which are the meter reading extract and calculation of electrical charges. We hold that the electrical charges in Ext.A1 and Ext.A4 are correct and proper. In Ext.A4 opposite party has claimed Rs.13,006/- as surcharges. The delay to make payment occurred only because opposite parties failed to issue duplicate bill. Complainant was always willing to remit the amount. The matter has been dragged to this prolonged litigation only because of the reluctance of opposite party to issue duplicate bill. Counsel for opposite parties submitted that they are ready to deduct 50% of surcharges. Since the delay in payment is not willful we hold that complainant is not liable to pay surcharges of Rs.13,006/-.<br /> <br /> 6. The electricity supply to the room is admittedly disconnected. It is not brought on record by either side on which date it was disconnected. Opposite parties issued notice to dismantle the connection on 7-1-2004. Complainant then has filed petition I.A.21/04 seeking interim orders to restrain the opposite parties from dismantling. This petition was allowed on 21-1-2004. Counsel for complainant submitted that the room could not be let out because the electricity was disconnected. Thus complainant has lost rents and profits for the last five years. Complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment suffered due to deficiency in service of opposite parties. We assess the compensation as Rs.3000/-.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the surcharge in Ext.A4 for Rs.13,006/- is set aside and cancelled. Complainant shall pay the balance amounts (Rs.6750/- + Rs.1377/- + Rs.11,706/-) as shown in Ext.A4. On payment opposite parties are ordered to restore the electric connection to consumer No.17173. Opposite parties are also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees thousand only) within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 22th day of October, 2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Duplicate bill dated, 21-12-2001.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Request letter dated, 23-7-2001.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the Reply to request letter dated, 23-7-2001.<br /> Ext.A4 : Demand notice dated, 17-11-2001.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3<br /> Ext.B1 : Details of Additional Bill relating to consumer No.17173<br /> Ext.B2 : Details of arrears pending against Consumer No.l7173<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Meter reading extract relating <br /> to consumer No.17173.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />