M.K DEVANANTHAN, S/O. VALSALAMMA filed a consumer case on 19 Apr 2008 against ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER in the Malappuram Consumer Court. The case no is OP/03/319 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Kerala
Malappuram
OP/03/319
M.K DEVANANTHAN, S/O. VALSALAMMA - Complainant(s)
Versus
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - Opp.Party(s)
K.P JAYAKRISHNAN
19 Apr 2008
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MALAPPURAM consumer case(CC) No. OP/03/319
M.K DEVANANTHAN, S/O. VALSALAMMA
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant challenges the bill issued by opposite party for Rs.42,662/- dated, 01-12-03. 2. Opposite parties filed joint version stating that on 28-11-03 Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikkode conducted an inspection and detected that one phase of the energy meter was not recording consumption. Hence reassessment was made and bill was issued without imposing any penalty. Meter was replaced on 04-12-03. Complainant is liable to pay the amount. 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B6 marked on behalf of opposite party. 4. According to complainant the meter was faulty and the bill issued is not proper. Ext.A2 is the disputed bill for Rs.42,662/-. Ext.A1 is the notice issued to complainant after inspection. Opposite party resists the complaint contending that one phase of the meter was not working and therefore not recording consumption. Reassessment was made basing upon 50% of the consumption recorded in the other two phases. Ext.B3 is the site mahazar. In Ext.B3 it is stated that each phase was inspected after giving load and it was found that one phase of the meter was not working. Admittedly meter was replaced on 04-12-03. Ext.B6 is the meter reading card. It shows that meter was replaced on 04-12-03. The consumption pattern in Ext.B6 after replacement of meter is higher when compared to the consumption prior to replacement of meter. This proves the version of opposite party to be true. In Ext.A2 bill opposite party has not imposed any penalty or other charges. Complainant is liable to pay charges for the actual energy consumed. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. We consider it proper to allow complainant to remit the amount in instalments. 5. In the result, complaint partly allowed. We order that opposite party shall give free instalment facility to the complainant to remit the amount as per Ext.A2 bill dated, 01-12-03 with at least 10 instalments. No order as to costs. Dated this 19th day of April, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2 Ext.A1 : Notice dated, 02-12-03 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A2 : Disputed bill for Rs.42,662/- dated, 01-12-03 issued by opposite party to complainant . Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B6 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the disputed bill for Rs.42,662/- dated, 01-12-03 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the report of Anti Power Theft Squad dated, 28-11-03 . Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Site Mahazar dated, 28-11-03 prepared by opposite party. Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the notice dated, 02-12-03 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.B5 : Photo copy of the Judgement in O.P.No.19614/2001. Ext.B6 : Photo copy of the Meter reading extract relating to consumer No.9821 C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................AYISHAKUTTY. E ......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.