.F: /3/ D.o.F:7/3/09 D.O.O:21/06/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.91/09 Dated this, the 21st day of June 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI :MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER Mercy Thomas W/o Sunny, : Complainant R/at Olikkal,Malamkadavu, Palavayal Po,Kasaragod Adv.E.Sukumaran,Hosdurg) 1.ChiefExecutive Engineer, KSEB,Kasaragod. : Opposite parties 2. Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Nallompuzha Section, Nallompuzha PO, Nileshwar Via,Kasaragod. 3. Sub Engineer,KSEB, Nallompuzha Section, Nallompuzha PO, Nileshwar Via,Kasaragod 4. Raghu, Line man,KSEB, Nallompuzha Section, Nallompuzha PO, Nileshwar Via,Kasaragod (Adv.P.Raghavan ,Kasaragod) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT The gist of the complaint is as follows: Complainant is the beneficiary of electricity consumer No.3000 under the jurisdiction of opposite parties. She used to remit the electricity charges regularly. However, she could not pay 1174/- rupees due towards the bill dtd. 14/3/09 in time since she was hospitalized. Therefore, the connection is disconnected on 1/4/09. Though the payment is effected on 2/4/09 the connection is not restored. Hence she compelled to hire a generator paying 350/- rupees per day from 2/4/09 it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to restore the connection immediately after the remittance of electricity charges. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite parties the due date for payment of the bill was 21/3/09 and date for the disconnection due to nonpayment of the bill was 28.3.09. Since the payment was not made within the stipulated time the connection was disconnected on 1/4/09. The consumer paid the dues on 2/4/09. Immediately the concerned line man gone to the premises of the complainant to reconnect the supply. But he was not allowed to reconnect the power supply on the reason that it was not reconnected before 2.P.M on 2/4/09. At that time meter reading was 8876 units. complainant consumed 29 units of electricity un authorisedly by connecting the fuse with electric wire. The opposite parties have disconnected the electricity as per the provisions of Electricity Act. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of her claim. Ext.A1 series to A4 marked. One witness is examined as PW2. On the side of opposite parties Exts.B1 to B5 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties delayed the reconnection of the electricity that was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Therefore she constrained to hire a generator for her domestic purpose. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that the entrance gate to the premises of the consumer was closed and it was locked from inside. Later at about 5.P.M as per direction of 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party and lineman Joy again went to the premises of the consumer to effect reconnection. At that time husband of the complainant refused to open the entrance gate and shouted that he would not allow the opposite parties to reconnect supply since opposite parties failed to provide the reconnection before 2.P.M. So the opposite parties could not effect the reconnection. Later the connection has been restored on 29/4/09 as per the Interim order of the Forum. At the time of disconnection the reading was 8847 units but at the time of reconnection it was 8876 units. Thereby complainant consumed electricity unauthorized during the days it was disconnected. Inspite of their attempt to reconnect the electricity on the date of payment of electricity bill dues, complainant did not allow them to enter in to their house since the connection was not restored before 2 P.M on the same day when the bill is paid. 5. PW2 is the proprietor of B&B Decoration. He deposed that Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by him to the complainant towards the acceptance of hire charges for the generator he rented to complainant during the period 2/4/09 to 29/4/09. In cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite party Sri.P.Raghavan, PW2 deposed that the generator has been taken by the complainant herself on 2/4/09 afternoon. But the case of the complainant is that she was having serious neuro problems and undergone a major operation and she was admitted and treated in Medical College Hospital, Periyaram from 18/3/09 to 25/3/09. She further stated in her affidavit that there is no body other than her husband to assist her in home and all the domestic works are being carried out with the aid of electricity. In such a situation it is hard to believe she herself gone to the shop of PW2 who is running his shop at Pulingom in Kannur District in the afternoon of 2/4/09 itself. Being a patient taking rest after hospitalization, how the complainant herself gone to the shop of PW2 is also casts serious doubt about the veracity of the deposition of PW2. Therefore it is clear that the version of PW2 has no nexus with the case and Ext.A4 is a document concocted for the purpose of the case. 6. The disconnection of electricity due to non payment of electrical bill is not a deficiency in service and the opposite parties are fully authorized to do it as per the Act, rules, regulations and conditions. Ext.B5 is the photocopy of disconnection register. In that it is seen that opposite parties have reconnected all the connections on the date of remittance of arrears itself. This aspect support the case of the opposite parties that they attempted to provide the reconnection on the date of remittance of arrears itself, but complainant and her husband did not allow them to enter into their house by locking the gate from inside. Exts.B1 to B4 further proves the case of opposite parties. Ext.B1 is the site mahazer prepared by the 3rd opposite party. In that it is recorded that the house owner refused to open the gate to provide reconnection. Ext, .B2 is a copy of the letter issued by 3rd opposite party to the consumer stating the reason for the non-restoration of electric connection to the consumer. From the facts and circumstances considered above, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing reconnection to the complainant. Hence the complaint dismissed without costs. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1 to A3-Electricity bills A4-receipt issued by PW2 to PW1 B1-2/4/09- Copy of Mahazar B2&B3-4/4/09-copy of letter issued by OP.2 B4-Copy of site Mahazar B5-copy of disconnection register PW1-Mercy Thomas- complainant PW2- Biju Augustine- witness of complainant Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
Complainant is the beneficiary of electricity consumer No.3000 under the jurisdiction of opposite parties. She used to remit the electricity charges regularly. However, she could not pay 1174/- rupees due towards the bill dtd. 14/3/09 in time since she was hospitalized. Therefore, the connection is disconnected on 1/4/09. Though the payment is effected on 2/4/09 the connection is not restored. Hence she compelled to hire a generator paying 350/- rupees per day from 2/4/09 it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to restore the connection immediately after the remittance of electricity charges. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite parties the due date for payment of the bill was 21/3/09 and date for the disconnection due to nonpayment of the bill was 28.3.09. Since the payment was not made within the stipulated time the connection was disconnected on 1/4/09. The consumer paid the dues on 2/4/09. Immediately the concerned line man gone to the premises of the complainant to reconnect the supply. But he was not allowed to reconnect the power supply on the reason that it was not reconnected before 2.P.M on 2/4/09. At that time meter reading was 8876 units. complainant consumed 29 units of electricity un authorisedly by connecting the fuse with electric wire. The opposite parties have disconnected the electricity as per the provisions of Electricity Act. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant filed affidavit in support of her claim. Ext.A1 series to A4 marked. One witness is examined as PW2. On the side of opposite parties Exts.B1 to B5 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused. 4. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties delayed the reconnection of the electricity that was disconnected for non-payment of dues. Therefore she constrained to hire a generator for her domestic purpose. On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that the entrance gate to the premises of the consumer was closed and it was locked from inside. Later at about 5.P.M as per direction of 2nd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party and lineman Joy again went to the premises of the consumer to effect reconnection. At that time husband of the complainant refused to open the entrance gate and shouted that he would not allow the opposite parties to reconnect supply since opposite parties failed to provide the reconnection before 2.P.M. So the opposite parties could not effect the reconnection. Later the connection has been restored on 29/4/09 as per the Interim order of the Forum. At the time of disconnection the reading was 8847 units but at the time of reconnection it was 8876 units. Thereby complainant consumed electricity unauthorized during the days it was disconnected. Inspite of their attempt to reconnect the electricity on the date of payment of electricity bill dues, complainant did not allow them to enter in to their house since the connection was not restored before 2 P.M on the same day when the bill is paid. 5. PW2 is the proprietor of B&B Decoration. He deposed that Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by him to the complainant towards the acceptance of hire charges for the generator he rented to complainant during the period 2/4/09 to 29/4/09. In cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite party Sri.P.Raghavan, PW2 deposed that the generator has been taken by the complainant herself on 2/4/09 afternoon. But the case of the complainant is that she was having serious neuro problems and undergone a major operation and she was admitted and treated in Medical College Hospital, Periyaram from 18/3/09 to 25/3/09. She further stated in her affidavit that there is no body other than her husband to assist her in home and all the domestic works are being carried out with the aid of electricity. In such a situation it is hard to believe she herself gone to the shop of PW2 who is running his shop at Pulingom in Kannur District in the afternoon of 2/4/09 itself. Being a patient taking rest after hospitalization, how the complainant herself gone to the shop of PW2 is also casts serious doubt about the veracity of the deposition of PW2. Therefore it is clear that the version of PW2 has no nexus with the case and Ext.A4 is a document concocted for the purpose of the case. 6. The disconnection of electricity due to non payment of electrical bill is not a deficiency in service and the opposite parties are fully authorized to do it as per the Act, rules, regulations and conditions. Ext.B5 is the photocopy of disconnection register. In that it is seen that opposite parties have reconnected all the connections on the date of remittance of arrears itself. This aspect support the case of the opposite parties that they attempted to provide the reconnection on the date of remittance of arrears itself, but complainant and her husband did not allow them to enter into their house by locking the gate from inside. Exts.B1 to B4 further proves the case of opposite parties. Ext.B1 is the site mahazer prepared by the 3rd opposite party. In that it is recorded that the house owner refused to open the gate to provide reconnection. Ext, .B2 is a copy of the letter issued by 3rd opposite party to the consumer stating the reason for the non-restoration of electric connection to the consumer. From the facts and circumstances considered above, it is clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing reconnection to the complainant. Hence the complaint dismissed without costs. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1 to A3-Electricity bills A4-receipt issued by PW2 to PW1 B1-2/4/09- Copy of Mahazar B2&B3-4/4/09-copy of letter issued by OP.2 B4-Copy of site Mahazar B5-copy of disconnection register PW1-Mercy Thomas- complainant PW2- Biju Augustine- witness of complainant Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
