01/01/2011
ORDER
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complainant’s case is that he is the consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.9217C and 9219C. The respondents issued bills dated 13/6/03 for Rs.10976/- and Rs.2,106/- for the period upto 1/01. Penal interest has also been demanded in these two bills. The respondents have no right to issue such bills and these bills were issued without any basis. No details or reading are given in these bills. The complainant is using the electricity for livelihood as part of self employment. He used to pay the electricity charges regularly. So he is not liable to pay these bills. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The respondents have stated in their counter version that the disputed electricity connections 9217C and 9219C are in the name of Rahmathulla under LT VII A tariff. Since Rahmathulla has not been impleaded the complaint lacks non joinder of necessary parties. Regarding consumer No.9217C the consumer has not remitted the monthly electricity charges as per the invoice card from 4/2000 to 1/2001 when card system was existing. More over the additional bills AB 3/2000, AB 9/2000 AB1/2001 were also defaulted So it is not true that no arrears are pending. As in the case of consumer No.9219C, the monthly electricity charges as per the invoice card were not remitted from 6/2000 to 1/2001. And the additional bills AB9/2000 and AB1/2001 were also defaulted. The disputed bills were issued only for the electricity consumed. So the consumer is liable to pay these bills. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are :
1)Is the complainant liable to pay the Exhibits P1 and P3 bills?
2)Other reliefs and costs ?
4. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P4 and the deposition recorded by PW1. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents.
5. Heard the counsels on both sides. The complainant’s case is that he used to pay the electricity charges regularly and no arrears are pending against him. But the respondents issued bills dated 13/6/03 for Rs.10,976/- and Rs.2106/- for the period up to 1/2001 in respect of the two electricity connections used by him. No reading or details are furnished in these bills. So they are baseless and the complainant is not liable to pay them. The counter version is that the disputed electricity connections are in the name of Rahmathulla and he is not impleaded in the complaint. Before the introduction of spot billing system the monthly electricity charges for the period 4/2000 to 1/2001 as per the invoice card were defaulted and the additional bills issued during these period were also kept unpaid. Hence it is not true that no arrears are pending against the consumer. So the Exhibits P1 and P3 bills relate to the electricity consumed by the consumer and he is liable to pay them. In the complaint the complainant has stated that he used to pay the electricity charges regularly and no arrear is pending against him. But no evidence has been produced in this regard. While on cross examining the complainant he agreed that it is true that the arrears are not remitted. The Exhibit P1 and P3 bills are seen issued to Rahmathulla. Hence the connections are in the name of him. So the complainant is not the real consumer in respect of these disputed electricity connections, which is contradiction to his statement. Since the arrears of electricity charges are kept pending the complainant is liable to pay them.
6. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 1st day of January 2011.
Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/- Rajani.P.S., Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Copy of notice No.4483
Ext. P2 calculation statement
Ext. P3 Copy of notice No.4484
Ext. P4 Calculation statement
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – C.D.Simon
Id/-
Member
