By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to cure the complaint in electricity connection and give proper bill and not to disconnect the connection and to pay cost and compensation for the deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The petitioner is a business man carrying on Tyre business and puncture Shop in rented house bearing Door. No. MP.IV/543 G, of Muttil Panjayath, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad District. Mr. Mathukutty and Sisily Mathew are the owners of the said building. As per the rental agreement dated 01/05/2011 the petitioner taken the said room for rent from the owner of the said building. The petitioner submits that there is electricity connection in the said room as per the consumer No.30024-0 and the petitioner paying the electricity bills with out any default. As his work is not with the use of the electricity he was using only a small unit of electricity and his average bill is in between 200 and 500 for the last 3 years. On 21.07.2014, with rude shock and surprise the petitioner received a electricity bill from the opposite party directing him to pay Rs.10,316/- towards the electricity bill. Immediately after receiving the bill the petitioner approached the opposite party and complained about the bill as he did not use that much electricity and he is not liable to pay that amount. After two days Mr. Sreedharan (A-E) inspected the said building. After inspection he opined that there is connection problem in the meter the connection is in such a way to enter the water in to the meter through the service wire during the rainy season. That was the reason for showing such a huge consumption in the meter he assured to cure that complaint with in few days. After that the petitioner approached the opposite party on several occasions and asked him to cure the said complaint and supply the bill for his actual consumption, he assured that he will cure the complaint with in few days but not cured the complaint till today. When the petitioner approached the opposite party two days before the opposite party warned the petitioner that they will disconnect the electricity connection if the petitioner failed to pay Rs.10,316/- on or before 12.08.2014. The defects was due to not giving connection to the meter in correct and proper manner. The above act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency in service. Hence prayed before the Forum to cure the complaint of the electricity connection to the shop of the petitioner and to give electricity bill to the petitioner for his actual consumption and not to disconnect the electricity connection provided to the shop of the petitioner and to pay cost of this petition.
3. Notices were served to opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts for the following reasons. From the very pleadings in the complaint and the relief sought for it can be seen that the complainant has approached this Honorable Forum alleging defects in giving connection to the meter and hence for getting the bill corrected. It is seen that the complainant has approached this Honorable Forum suppressing the material facts to suit his cause. It is respectfully submitted that electric connection bearing Consumer No.6719 under Electrical Section, Muttil stands registered in the name of Sri. Mathukutty, Pazhaya Madom, Parakkal, Muttil to his premises bearing No. MPIV/543 G of Muttil Grama Panchayath. (Originally the connection was effected on 30.09.2009 with Consumer No.30024 from Electrical Section, Kalpetta and which later on constituting of Electrical Section, Muttil was brought under its jurisdiction with Consumer No.6719). This being so, the complainant herein is having no locus standi to institute this complaint. This Opposite Party is not aware of the averments regarding renting out of the said building and hence he deny the same.
4. In this context, this Opposite Party may be permitted to draw the attention of this Honorable Forum to the following specific facts. Electricity industry in the land is governed by Electricity Act, 2003 (Central Act 36 of 2003) and as per section 82 of the same, every State Government is bound to constitute for the purposes of the said Act, a Commission and accordingly the Government of Kerala has constituted Kerala state Electricity Regulatory Commission. Section 50 of the said Act, mandates such State Commission to specify an electricity 'Supply Code' to provide for recovery of electricity charges, intervals for billing of electricity charges disconnection of supply of electricity for non-payment thereof, restoration of supply of electricity, measures for preventing tampering, distress or damage to electrical plant or electrical line or meter, entry of distribution licensee or any person acting on his behalf for disconnecting supply and removing the meter, entry for replacing, altering or maintaining electric lines or electrical plants or meter and such other matters. The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission has acted accordingly and with effect from 31.01.2012, the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 made by the said authority is in vogue.
5. Regulation 21 (1) of the same stipulates as follows: '21 the safe custody of the meter and other equipment of the licensee - (1) It is the responsibility of the consumer to keep in safe custody, the meter and other equipment of the licensee and seals on the meter and associated equipment installed within the premises of the consumer'. The periodical testing of meter at site were done and nothing material questioning the accuracy of the same came to the notice of this Opposite Party and his subordinates. While so, on issuance of bill dated 22.07.2014 amounting to Rs.10,316/-, the consumer Sri. Mathukutty lodged a formal complaint with this Opposite Party. Thereon, a check meter was installed in the premises on 23.07.2014 parallel to the existing meter and it goes without elucidation that the existing meter is a sound one and is recording consumption accurately. Therefore the consumer is bound to remit the said bill for Rs.10,316/- which was issued for the electrical energy actually consumed in the said premises. The consumer was made aware of the position and averments to the contrary are not true to facts.
6. From the above submitted facts, it can be seen that there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Opposite Party. All what he has done was to demand charges for electricity supplied by him through a sound meter and which was actually consumed by the consumer. As such, this Honorable Forum may be pleased to advise the complainant to see reason and honour the demand. In this context, it is also specifically submitted that as per section 42 (5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Fora and Ombudsman are constituted and the complainant herein has no case that he has exhausted the remedies before the said authorities duly constituted under the said Act. Further as submitted supra, this Opposite Party has acted in strict consonance with 'Supply Code, 2014 and as such the present complainant is not maintainable before this Honorable Forum in view of the specific interdict as per Section 145 of the said Act. For clarity the same is re-produced as under 145:- Civil Court not to have jurisdiction:- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any mater which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or on appellate authority referred to in Section 127 or the adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
7. In the light of the above stated specific interdict, and authoritative pronouncements made by the apex court of the land reported in 2013 (3) KILT SN 29 (No.31) and in 2012 (2) 5CC 108, it can be seen that the present alleged cause of action is not maintainable. This Honorable Forum may be pleased to accept this Version and dismiss the complaint.
8. Complainant filed Proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 series 18 in numbers and Ext.A2 series 21 in numbers and Ext.A3 and A4 series 2 in numbers marked. Ext.A1 series are the Bills issued by opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A1(2) to A1(18) shows an average bill of Rs.500/- for two month but Ext.A1(1) is the bill for Rs.10,316/-. Ext.A2 series is the payment receipt towards the Ext.A1 series bill. Ext.A3 is the Agreement executed between the complainant and the actual consumer. Ext.A4 series are the bills dated 16.04.2015 and 17.06.2015 that also shows the bill amount of Rs.1,175/- and Rs.1,370/- respectively. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and from the side of opposite party Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of request by the complainant to the opposite party to install the check meter. Ext.B2 is the Report and details of check meter and existing meter. From the report both meters shows the same consumption of 18 units for 8 days. So we found that existing meter having no complaint.
9. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
10. Point No.1:- The complainant's case is that he was using only a small unit of electricity and his average bill is in between Rs.200/- and Rs.500/- for the last 3 years. But the disputed bill dated 21.07.2014 was for 1004 unit and the bill amount was Rs.10,316/-. Immediately after receiving the bill the parties approached the opposite party and complained about the bill and suddenly the opposite parties has installed the check meter on 23.07.2014 parallel to the existing meter and the result was same as per Ext.B2. From the above it goes without elucidation that the existing meter is a sound one and in recording consumption accurately. No evidence before the Forum to find otherwise. Therefore the consumer is bound to remit the said bill of Rs.10,316/- which was issued for the electrical energy actually consumed. Hence we find no deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
11. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the complainant, no relief, cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:12.08.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Rudheesh Kumar. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1(Series). Electricity Bills (18 Nos).
A2(Series). Receipts (21 Nos).
A3. Copy of Agreement.
A4(Series). Electricity Bills(2 Nos).
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of Letter. Dt:22.07.2014.
B2. Copy of Report and Details of check Meter.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
