Kerala

Idukki

CC/09/52

Ali w/o Uthupu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst.Ex.Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 52
1. Ali w/o UthupuMelel house,Thockupara karaIdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Asst.Ex.EngineerKSEB,ChithirapuramIdukkiKerala2. SecretarryKSEB,TvmTvmKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 29 Jun 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER


 

C.C No.52/2009

Between

Complainant : Eli W/o Uthuppu

Melel House

Thokkupara Kara.

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Major Section,

Chithirapuram.

2. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Accounts Officer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Major Section,

Chithirapuram P.O

Chithirapuram.

O R D E R


 

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)


 

The complainant is a 95 years old widow. She is a consumer of the opposite party with No.4250. The Electrical energy meter in the premises became faulty and so the complainant was not remitting the bills regularly. On 23/11/02 the opposite party disconnected the electric supply without assigning any reason. The opposite party insured a bill for Rs.1,868/-. The complainant was not so far informed that the meter was faulty and there was no lapses on the part of the complainant. It was the duty of the officers of the Board to take steps for changing the meter. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant is requested for cancellation of the bill in question and for a direction to restore the power supply.


 

2. In the written version filed on behalf the opposite party , it is admitted that electric connection with consumer No.4250 was given to the complainant. The meter installed in the premises became faulty and the consumer was not paying the Electrical charges from 1/2001 on wards. Dismantling notice issued to the consumer on 23/11/02 for an amount of Rs.1,868/-. The meter was dismantled on 7/01/03 due to non-payment of Electrical charges. If the complainant applies for a fresh connection, the opposite party are ready to give the same after clearing the dues Rs.1,868/-, meter minimum charge, additional cash deposit, etc., and to furnish sufficient documents if the consumer was under BPL category.


 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?


 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.P1(series) on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 on the side of the opposite parties.


 

5. The POINT:- The complainant's Son was examined as PW1. At the time of examination he had practically admitted that he was not remitted the bills regularly. The power supply was disconnected by the opposite party on the ground of no-payment of electricity charges. Ext.P1 series(1 to 12) are the electricity bill supplied by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant's case is that, the opposite party disconnected the electric supply on 23/11/02 without any reason. In the cross examination, PW1 stated that he is ready to pay the Ext.P1 bills in installments because he is not possible to pay the whole amount at a time. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 is the copy of the dismantle Register. On 7/01/03 the complainant's Electrical connection was dismantled. Ext.R2 is the statement of Accounts during the period of 2/2000 to 11/2002. Ext.R3 is the copy of order from Kerala State Electricity Board dated 21/05/03 about the procedure of service re-connection. In the Ext.R2 would show that, in the year 2/2000 to 11/2000 the energy charge was Rs.23/-per month. But in the Ext.P1(1 to 12) bills, the 1st bill dated 8/11/2000 would show that the current charge on consumption were not written. The 2nd bill dated 10/01/2001 would show that the Electrical charge is Rs.62/-,consumption as unit 80 was noted. In all other bills the amount of consumption is written. According to the opposite party, the meter became faulty during that period. There is no material evidance to see whether the faulty meter was replaced. There were lapses on the part of the employees on reporting the fault of the meter. Ext.P1(1 to 12) bill were issued by the same person who is Mr.Bijo Mathew, spot biller, It can be seen, in the Ext.P1 series bills. In the evidence of the PW1 and Ext.P1 series bills, the complainant was not paid any amount up to 11/2000 because she was exempted from the payment of Electrical charges. In the written version also the opposite party admitted that the complainant was not paid the current charge from 1/2001 on- wards and the dismantling notice was issued to the consumer on 23/11/2002. But in the Ext.R2, statement of Accounts, the opposite party calculated the energy charge from 2/2000 to 11/2002. Therefore, the Ext.R2, statement of Accounts are not correct. So the opposite party should reconsider the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity to the complainant of being heard. The complainant is an age old widow and she is under the BPL category. PW1 stated that he is ready to pay the Ext.P1 series bills for the period from 1/01 to 11/02 amount as installments. In this particular case, the only remady is to allowed to be remit the amount in 3 mothly installments.


 

In the result, the petition is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancell the Ext.R2, the statement of Accounts and to prepare a correct statement of Account on the basis of the Ext.P1 series bills. The complainant will also be allowed to remit the amount in 3 monthly installments. After remitting the 1st installment,and if the complainant comply all the formalities, the opposite party is directed to give a new service connection to the complainant.


 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2009.


 


 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

 

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

 

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

APPENDIX


 

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - M.U Mathai

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Shaila

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1series(1) - Electricity bill No.VP 1252432 dated 8/11/2000

Ext.P1series(2) - Electricity bill No.VP 3258255 dated 10/01/2001

Ext.P1series(3) - Electricity bill No.B 301803 dated 17/03/2001

Ext.P1series(4) - Electricity bill No.B 694725 dated 13/07/2001

Ext.P1series(5) - Electricity bill No.E 745906 dated 13/09/2001

Ext.P1series(6) - Electricity bill No.G 861345dated 14/11/2001

Ext.P1series(7) - Electricity bill No.G 585266 dated 15/01/2002

Ext.P1series(8) - Electricity bill No.F 94464 dated 14/03/2002

Ext.P1series(9) - Electricity bill No.H 338422 dated 15/05/2002

Ext.P1series(10) - Electricity bill No.F 795015 dated 16/07/2002

Ext.P1series(11) - Electricity bill No.D 164493 dated 13/09/2002

Ext.P1series(12) - Electricity bill No.G 221987 dated 14/11/2002

 

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of dismantle Register.

Ext.R2 - Statement of Accounts for the period 2/2000 to 11/2002.

Ext.R3 - Copy of Order BO(FB)No.2205/2004/(DPC1/G1/03) dated

04/09/2004 produced by theopposite party.


 


 

 


HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, MemberHONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member