ORDER
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complaint was filed by Sri.K.T.Samuel, Proprietor, School of Arts, Thrissur. But while adjudicating the case he died and his son Mathew Samuel was impleaded as per the order in IA.929/09. The case is that they are the consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.880. The respondents issued a bill dated 1/4/03 to pay Rs.23,798/- as arrears of electricity charges upto 1/01. Earlier the respondents had issued a bill dated 24/10/00 for Rs.40,190/- for the period upto 9/2000. The complainant filed a complaint vide OP.1187/2000 and it was ordered in favour of the complainant. But without complying the orders the respondent issued the present bill for Rs.23,798/-. The complainant issued a lawyer notice on 5/4/03. Without considering this the respondents disconnected the supply on 31/5/03. When the complainant informed this about the order the supply was reconnected. So the action of the respondents in issuing a bill for Rs.23,798/- and disconnecting the supply amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The counter statements are that the electricity connection No.880 is a non-domestic one in the name of Sri.T.M.Varghese and it is billed under LT VII A tariff. The complainant has not paid the additional bills AB 9/98, AB 3/99 and AB 3/2000. He has also defaulted the electricity charges as per the invoice card from 1/4/98 to 31/1/2001. So the total arrears as on 31/1/2001 was Rs.23,799/- and interest Rs.5,383/-. In order to comply the directions of the Forum the electricity meter was tested and no defect was detected. Hence there was no need for a refixation of the tariff and it was informed to the complainant with the copy of the last report on 25/9/03. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Is the complainant liable to pay the amount as per Exhibit P1 notice ?
2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents in this
case?
3) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3, Exhibit R1 and the oral testimony by the PW1.
5. It was directed in OP.1187/2000 to test the meter installed in the premises of the complainant and on receipt of the test report, the respondent can refix the tariff and rectify the mistake if any detected with regard to the consumption of energy during the relevant period. The respondent have stated in the counter affidavit that the meter was tested and found no defect. The reading recorded earlier was also found correct. But where was it tested is not stated. They have further stated that a reply was given to the complainant with the test report. The copy of the test report or the letter said to have forwarded t the complainant is not produced. So testing cannot be believed.
6. The respondent issued an adjustment invoice dated 24/10/2000 to pay Rs.40,190/- for excess consumption of energy till 9/2000. The amount requested in the Exhibit P1 notice is Rs.23,798/- as arrears of electricity charges upto 1/2001. But as per the details given in Exhibit R1 the opening balance as on 4/2000 was Rs.28,001. The complainant remitted Rs.12,153/- during 2000-2001. After reducing this amount the arrears of electricity charges to be paid on 1/01 is Rs.23,798/-. But the amount 40,190/- is nowhere seen in the Exhibit R1. If the complainant had to pay Rs.40,190/- till 9/2000 as per the adjustment invoice issued on 24/10/2000, how did it reduce to Rs.28,001/- on 4/2000 as per their own calculation. These all shows the serious deficiency in service committed by the respondents. If they had complied the directions of the Forum they should have produced sound proof for that. At the same time the amount shown in the Exhibit P1 notice is not seen genuine as per Exhibit R1 itself. Hence the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the Exhibit P1 notice.
7. In the result the complaint is allowed and the Exhibit P1 notice stands cancelled. The orders in IA.297/03 dated 23/6/2003 is made absolute.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of May 2012.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Copy of Notice
Ext. P2 Calculation statement
Ext. P3 Copy of OP.1187/2000
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – Mathew Samuel
Respondents Exhibits
Ext, R1 Calculation statement
Id/-
Member
