By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the Complaint is as follows:<br /> <br /> The Complainant is conducting a travel agency and is a consumer of electricity connection No. 4095 VII A B3 KPT. The service was disconnected since 1995 on the request of the Complainant. The Complainant has applied for reconnection and approached the Opposite party several time. The Opposite party instead, issued a bill on a rough paper for Rs. 38,638/- and decreased the amount to Rs. 12,103/-. The Opposite party informed the Complainant that the earlier complaint filed by the Complainant was misplaced in the Opposite party's office and the Complainant has filed a fresh complaint to the Opposite party for reconnection. But there was no response from the Opposite parties. In June 2001, The Complainant was orally informed that he has to pay an amount of <br /> (Contd.....2 )<br /> -2-<br /> Rs. 19,000/- as electricity charges. The Complainant approached the executive engineer K.S.E.B for <br /> remedy, but the Engineer orally ordered the Complainant to pay Rs. 54,000/- . Then the Complainant send a lawyer notice to the Opposite party demanding the correct and detailed account showing the exact amount to be paid by the Complainant, for the reconnection of service. There was no reply from the Opposite party and the service was not reconnected. The Complainant has incurred loss and damage due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. The Complainant estimates the loss and damages of business to an amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The Complainant also demands Rs. 10,000/- from the Opposite party for the mental agony and hardships incurred by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party Rs. 1,000/- also is demanded as cost of the complaint. The Complainant states that he is ready to remit any lawful amount due to the Opposite party for getting reconnection. According to him it is Rs. 20/- per month in 1995 to 1998 and Rs. 60/- per month as per the revised tariff.<br /> <br /> The Opposite party filed version and admitted the service connection in the name of Complainant as Connection No. 4095 under Kalpetta Section. The Opposite party stated that the Complainant has not remitted any amount as current charges from 1994. A provisional invoice card was issued to the Complainant and current charges are to be remitted as per that Provisional Invoice Card . During these years the Complainant has not raised any dispute regarding the units allowed or amount in the Provisional Invoice Card. From 5/2000, Spot billing system was introduced and regular bimonthly bills were issued to the consumers. The Opposite party admits that the connection was disconnected. They state that the Complainant has approached them for reconnection and demanded update statement of arrears to be remitted. The complainant has also sent a lawyer notice in this regard. As per the Opposite parties an amount of Rs. 57,967/- is outstanding against the Complainant as on 31.3.2002 including reconnection fee. As per the version of Opposite parties, the Complainant has not taken any interest to clear the dues and get the service reconnected. The Opposite parties also <br /> (Contd....3)<br /> -3-<br /> <br /> have filed an additional version and claims that there is no deficiency in service on their part and denied their liability to pay any compensation to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Assistant Executive Engineer of Opposite party No.1 has given evidence as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext B1, Ext. B2 and Ext. B3. <br /> <br /> The issues to be considered are as follows.<br /> 1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.<br /> 2. Whether any order as to cost or compensation. <br /> <br /> Point No.1<br /> The Ext.B3 bill issued by the Opposite parties doesn't show the period or units of consumption for which they are demanding the amount of Rs. 57,847/-. This bill doesn't describe the particulars. Ext. B1 the meter reading register extract reveals that meter reading is not taken during the period from 5/1995 to 9/1999. But as per Ext.B2 the Opposite parties have billed the Complainant for this period. And as per Ext. B2, the due amount is Rs. 57,967/-. Rs. 120/- more than the B3 bill. The Complainant has alleged about the irresponsible bills issued by the Opposite parties during this period. The Complainant's contention is that the disconnection was done in 1995 on his request. It is recorded in Ext. B1 door locked on 4/97. The Opposite parties in their version doesn't disclose anything about the date of disconnection. From the deposition of OPW1, it is made clear that there is no record to show the date of disconnection. So the complaint is held true and the Opposite party is found to have billed for a connection which was disconnected in 1995. From the above facts, it is clear that there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> (Contd......4)<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> Point No.2<br /> It is seen from the records that the reconnection was effected as per the order of the Forum on July 2003 upon payment of Rs. 8771. The order of the Forum was to reconnect the service upon payment of Rs. 7000/-. So it is found that all other demands and bills of the Opposite parties are settled on payment of this amount. It is submitted by the Opposite parties that the Complainant is regularly paying the bills after the reconnection. So the Opposite parties are to retain the connection. It is only just that the Opposite parties are to pay compensation to the Complainant for the loss and hardship caused by the deficiency in service on their part. Hence the point No.2 is held against the Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Therefore, the Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant as compensation and a cost of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The Complainant is entitled to execute the order as per law.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 7th day of January 2008.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER : Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant<br /> <br /> PW1 Abdulla Complainant<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite party<br /> <br /> OPW1 M.S. Sivarajan Assistant Engineer, KSEB Kalpetta<br /> <br /> (Contd....... 5)<br /> <br /> - 5 -<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant<br /> <br /> A1. Copy of Letter. dt: 23.05.1999.<br /> A2. Photo copy of the Bill. <br /> A3. Copy of the Letter. dt:26.07.2000.<br /> <br /> A4 Lawyer Notice dt: 24.4.2008.<br /> A4(a) Acknowledgment <br /> A5 Series. <br /> (4 in number) Demand & Disconnection Notice. <br /> <br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite party<br /> <br /> B1. Attested Copy of the Meter Reading.<br /> B2. Attested copy of the Statement<br /> B3. Notice. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> <br /> M/ <br /> <br />