Date of Filing: 24/09/2011

        Date of Order: 14/12/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  14^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1757 OF 2011

Smt. Bhagya,

W/o. J.Kumaraswamy,

Aged About 33 years,

No.26, Rajeevgandhi Road,

J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.

(Rep. by Sri.Nagaraja, Advocate)                                    ….  Complainant.

V/s

Assistant Executive Engineer,

East 6^th Sub Section, BESCOM,

J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560 078.

(Rep. by Lurdu Mary D’Mello, Advocate)                            …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the complainant  and to cancel the illegal demands made by the opposite party, are necessary:-

          The complainant is having the R.R. No.6S 9506 electrical meter to her premises and she is paying the bills as and when it comes and noting is due.  Even then on 27.08.2011 the opposite party demanded Rs.10,02,256.08 paise and on 16.09.2011 they demanded Rs.17,76,260/- this is illegal.  The complainant has no necessity to use such electricity.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

          The complainant is having the meter R.R.No. 6S 9506Lt3.  It is a commercial plant.  On inspection it was found that the meter reading are wrongly taken KWH meter reading since December-2005.  It resulted in short claim.  Hence the complainant was issued notice on 27.08.2011 demanding Rs.17,76,260/-.  The complainant paid Rs.27,406/-the bill amount.  Due to the corrected bill as mentioned in the notice the complainant is required to pay the short claim charges of Rs.10,02,256/-.  The case of comparison of the bills from 30.09.2004 to 16.08.2011 indicates and reflects utilization of the electricity by the complainant.  The notice is issued in accordance with the rules.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents.  The arguments were heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having electrical connection in meter R.R. No.6S9506 and whatever the bills that has been issued right from 2004 has been paid by her and there was no default in payment of the same.

7.       However it is seen that on 27.08.2011 the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant which reads thus:-

That is to say according to the opposite party the MT staff inspected the meter on 01.08.2011 and they found that the meter reading is wrongly taken as 5 digits instead of 6 digits from December-2005 and there was a short claim and they demanded the amount of Rs.10,02,256/- and if it is not paid the meter connection will be disconnected.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  How can any person, after lapse of six years, come and say that the meter reading was wrongly taken from six years back.  What is the five digits meter reading they have taken? How there is excess or shortage is not stated.  In any event whatever the meter reading that was taken it was billed and the complainant had paid the money.  Hence they cannot turn round and say that a wrong recording of meter reading was done from 2005 and hence the complainant is liable to pay the short claim for six years.  This is nothing but an untenable contention.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  Even otherwise what was the bill amount made from 2005 to 2011? What should have been the bill amount from 2005 to 2011? Why the difference and how the difference? Is not at all stated.  Who is responsible for this short claim? There is no answer.

8.       In any event if any short claim is there it is on the negligence of the opposite party and its personnel.  For the negligence of the opposite party the complainant cannot be handled up.  If any short claim has been made the opposite party is at liberty to recover the short claim from its personnel who are responsible for this and they cannot dump the complainant after lapse of six years for which this order will not come in that way.  In any event the opposite party cannot claim any excess billing.  This order will not come in the way of the opposite party claiming the current bills in accordance with law and not with any short claim.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly, and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The opposite party shall not disconnect the connection of the complainant in R.R. No.6S9506.  The notice dated: 27.08.2011 issued by the opposite party is unenforceable and the opposite party shall not claim that money from the complainant and the complainant is not liable to pay that money.

3.       The opposite party is directed to comply with the above said order as ordered at Serial No.2 and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

4.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

5.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th  Day of December 2011)

MEMBER                                                 MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT