By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The case of complainant is that the complainant is an electricity consumer of respondents vide consumer No.13264. The complainant is running the business exclusively for the purpose of livelihood as a means of self employment. The respondents issued Exhibit P1 and it is illegal and baseless. There are no details shown in the bill. The issuance of such a bill is a deficiency in service of respondents. Hence the complaint.
2. The averments in the counter in brief are that the electricity connection vide consumer No.13264 is in the name of one P.George and comes under 7B Tariff. The complainant did not pay additional bills amount and there are arrears of Rs.2413.33 as opening balance on 4/96. The complainant had been paid electricity charges as per card system. But the actual amount was not the amount as paid by the complainant. The connectin to the disputed consumer number comes under commercial purpose and so the complainant has no Locus stbandy to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum. There are numerous workers under the control of complainant. So it can not be said that the complainant is running the business for livelihood by means of self employment. There is no deficiency in service from the respondents. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are :
1) Is the complaint maintainable?
2) whether there was any deficiency in service from the respondents?
3) If so reliefs and costs?
4. The evidence adduced consists of Exhibit P1 and the oral testimony of PW1.
5. Exhibit P1 is under challenge. Exhibit P1 would show that there were arrears of Rs.6,332/- at 1/01. On the back side of the notice some details are shown and the balance in the year 1996 shows Rs.2413.33. The total amount to be paid as per Exhibit P1 is Rs.6,332/-. The complainant challenged this bill by stating that there were no details in Exhibit P1 bill as contemplated by Indian Electricity Act. The law says about the contents of bill. But Exhibit P1 does not fulfill the requirements of law. On that ground itself the bill is liable to be set aside. The respondents failed to adduce any evidence and the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted they have no oral or documentary evidence.
6. The husband of complainant is examined as PW1 and he deposed that in the premises they are running dye business exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. There is nothing to contradict the evidence given by PW1 and so the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. The respondents submitted no evidence and so there is no challenge against the evidence of the complainant.
7. In the result the complaint stands allowed and Exhibit P1 notice cancelled. No order as to cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of October 2010.
