Kerala

Malappuram

OP/04/70

K. P. PATHUMMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ELECTRICITY ENGINEER, KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/04/70

K. P. PATHUMMA
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

ELECTRICITY ENGINEER, KSEB
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. AYISHAKUTTY. E 2. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant is a consumer under opposite party for electricity connection for agricultural purpose which was availed by him on 10-3-2000. Initially she paid Rs.100/- for three months towards charges of electricity. Thereafter when she went to pay electricity charges opposite party informed her that, since the connection is for agricultural purpose she is exempted from payment of electricity charges. In April, 2004 her agricultural motor pump did not work and on making enquiries she came to know that her supply has been disconnected by opposite party due to default in paying current charges. She was served with a bill of huge arrears amounting to Rs.2,072/-. Since she needed electricity for irrigation of the coconut trees she paid Rs.2,116/- on 24-5-2004. Although opposite parties had assured that her connection would be restored on payment of the amount the supply was not restored. Thereafter she preferred a complaint to the Minister of Electricity. The supply was resotred only in January, 2005. Due to the delay in restoring supply she could not water coconut trees thus two coconut trees wilted. The motor pump also became purposeless. She is aggrieved that she is not liable to pay any current charges being consumer of agricultural connection and challengers the bills issued by opposite party. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for compensation and costs. 2. Version was filed by opposite party admitting that agricultural electricity connection was provided to complainant. It is submitted that complainant was exempted from paying electricity charges only from 8/2005 as per intimation received from Krishi Bhavan vide letter No.28/5/06 dated, 12-8-05. That complainant was liable to pay current charges as per the provisional Invoice Card which is Rs.38/- per month basing on 50 units. That spot billing was introduced by Kerala State electricity Board from 1/2001. Since the premises of the connection was locked meter readings could not be taken from 1/2001 to 3/2004, and spot bills could not be served during this period. Meter reading available on 4/2004 showed very low consumption. Suspecting sluggishness of the meter arrear spot bill was issued taking into consideration of 50 units as in the provisional Invoice Card. It is true that the service connection was disconnected initially being an unidentified service connection and the premises being permanently locked. After identifying the consumer number the arrears to be recovered was assessed and intimated to the petitioner. Spot bill arrears was issued for the defaulted period from 1/2002 to 3/2004 for Rs.2,072/- consumer was also asked to pay the Provisional Invoice Card dues from 5/2000 to 11/2000 which was Rs.266/-. Instalment facility was given which was not availed by the complainant. The spot bill arrears was remitted by the petitioner on 29-5-04. The connection was not restored because the Provisional Invoice Card arrears were still unpaid. That the complainant's service connection was disconnected only due to default in payment of charges. There is no deficiency in service. It is further submitted that on verifying the consumption pattern for the past two years it is found that the consumer sparingly uses energy for agricultural purpose. There is no fault of the meter. Opposite party is ready to revise the spot bill arrears for the period 1/2001 to 3/2004 which can be adjusted to future bills. 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to a10 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked for opposite party. 4. It is the say of the complainant that after availing the connection he paid Rs.100/- for three months and thereafter did not pay any amount towards current charges since opposite party told him that he is exempted from paying electricity charges. Opposite party resists this contention and fortify that complainant has been exempted from paying charges only from 8/2005. The burden lies upon the complainant to prove the fact that he is exempted from paying charges. Apart from the vague affirmation in the affidavit no evidence is tendered by complainant to prove this contention. Electricity supply being a public distribution system no person can be permitted to consume energy free, unless substantially established to be exempted from payment of charges. We hold that complainant has failed to establish that he is exempted from payment of electricity charges for the period from 10-3-2000 to 8/2005. Complainant has not paid any amount towards electricity charges after 2000 till 4-6-2004. The supply was disconnected due to non payment of charges which is justifiable. Complainant also challenges the spot bill arrears of Rs.2,072/- and Provisional Invoice Card arrears of Rs.266/-. Opposite party has admitted that the agricultural consumption of complainant is very low. Admittedly opposite party has not noted any fault of meter during this period. Ext.A2 is the spot bill arrears demanding Rs.2,072/-. Ext.A2 is assessed taking into account 50 units as considered in Provisional Invoice Card. Opposite party has filed version as well as statement that they are ready to revise the spot bill arrears taking into consideration the low consumption of complainant. In view of this statement and considering the evidence tendered by both sides we find that revising Ext.A2 bill would be sufficient remedy to the grievance of the complainant. Since complainant has already paid this amount and is exempted from payment of agricultural charges from 8/2005 the amount paid can be adjusted to the future bills of his domestic connection if any. The charges paid towards Provisional Invoice Card remains unmodified. 5. In the result, we allow this complaint and order the following:- (i) Ext.A2 bill dated, 24-5-2004 for Rs.2,072/- is cancelled. Opposite party shall issue revised bill for the period 1/2001 to 3/2004 taking into consideration the average units consumed as per the meter readings from 21-5-2004 to 30-11-2005. (ii) The amount already paid by the complainant towards Ext.A2 bill shall be adjusted to the future bills of her domestic connection if any. If there is no such connection the amount shall be refunded to the complainant. (iii) The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as two months from the date of this order. (iv) In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs. Dated this 18th day of July, 2008. Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT Sd/- E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A10 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Provisional Invoice Card issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A2 : Demand and disconnection notice for Rs.44/- dated, 22-5-2004 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A3 : Demand and disconnection notice for Rs.2072/- dated, 24-5-2004 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A4 : Receipt for Rs.2116/- from opposite party to complainant. Ext.A5 : Demand and disconnection notice for Rs.310/- dated, 21-7-2004 issued by opposite party to complainant. Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the request dated, 27-5-2005 submitted by complainant to Agricultural Minister. Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the request dated, 17-01-2005 submitted by complainant to Electricity Minister. Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the request dated, 28-01-2005 submitted by complainant to Agricultural Officer. Ext.A9 : Photographs (2 Nos.) Ext.A10series : Receipts (3 Nos.) for Rs.531/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.95/- from opposite party to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT Sd/- E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER




......................AYISHAKUTTY. E
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI