Monday the 31^st  day of August , 2009

in

between

 

 

                                                                                   

                                                                        O R D E R

                     The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties holding consumer No.ll968. The complainant under the scheme of self-employment is running a sawmill, and for the purpose of the same has availed a three phase connection from the opposite parties. The complainant has been remitting the energy charges without any default. Strangely still, the opposite parties on 13^th March 2008 issued an additional bill for an amount of Rs.27225/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand two hundred and  twenty five only ) requiring the complainant to remit the same prior to 28^th March 2008. The bill is absolutely illegal and indistinct. The opposite parties claim that the bill amount is for connected charge of 55 months. The material bill is unconvincing and ineloquent. The opposite parties’ service is  deficient. Feeling aggrieved on  this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation  and relief.

     2. On notices being served the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the contention of the opposite parties is that the energy connection the complainant availed was for profiteering purpose. The tariff provided to the said connection was L T.IV, and as such the complainant is not a consumer under the provisions of the relevant. According to the opposite parties, the connected load of the complainant was 21 KW until 27^th  March 2002. Thereafter on the request of the complainant the connected load was enhanced to 32KW. With the result, the fixed charge of the consumer was revised in line with the increased connected load, and the same was collected till December 2002. In 2003, the calculation register pertaining to the Industrial Consumer was changed, and owing to inadvertent mistake, the fixed charge for the complainant’s connection was collected from January 2003 to July 2007, as if he was holding the connected load of 21KW. To put it clearly, the opposite parties collected only Rs.995/-(Rupees Nine hundred  ninety five only ) instead of the fixed charge Rs.1440 (Rupees One thousand four hundred and forty only ). Thus the opposite parties owing to sheer unwitting omission collected fixed charge for a period of 55 months short of Rs.495 (Rupees Four hundred and ninety five only ) per month. In this manner, the complainant is liable to pay to the opposite party Rs.27225/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand two hundred and  twenty five only ) towards fixed charge, the opposite parties fervently contend. The bill the opposite parties issued has been for the energy the complainant consumed. The complaint is experimental without bonafides. The same is to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties forcefully contend.

                3. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as Pwl, and the documents Exbts Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, Asst. Engineer was examined as Rwl, and the documents Exbts Bl& B2 were marked.

                4. Keeping in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for

consideration are;-

          (a) Whether the bill issued by the opposite parties    `               is illegal?

    (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any      ` `      relief?

                5. The complainant case is that the opposite parties issued an unauthorized bill for an amount of Rs.27225/-(Rupees Twenty seven thousand two hundred and  twenty five only).  The opposite parties case is that by oversight, the opposite parties failed to collect Rs. 495 ( Rupees Four hundred  and ninety five only)  per month for 55 months towards fixed charge from the complainant. It appears that the primary contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was running a profiteering enterprise, and on that score, the complainant is not a consumer. Bearing lively in mind all the relevant contentions raised, we cautiously went through the materials put on record by the parties. It is not disputed that the connected load of the complainant’s connection was enhanced on 27^th  March2002. Concededly, when the connected load is enhanced, the fixed charge pertaining to the Said connection naturally goes up. In this backdrop, the immediate short question arises for consideration is whether the complainant had been paying the enhanced fixed charge till July 2007. We with a surgeon’s precision perused the entire materials brought before us on record by  the parties. It is crucial to notice that the complainant has neither any emphatic case that he had paid the enhanced fixed charge nor had produced any materials to show the same. In this context, the opposite parties’ contention that by inadvertent mistake, the opposite parties collected only the previous fixed charge of Rs.995/-( Rupees Nine hundred and ninety five only) in the place of Rs.1440 (Rupees One thousand one hundred  and forty only ) for a period of 55 months inspire confidence in the mind of this Forum. On the other hand the complainants’ case is shaky unsupported by sufficient materials Needless to say no reliance can be placed on the complainant case. We are of the strong view that the complainant case must fail. At the same time we must say that, the opposite parties shall  take into consideration the mistake committed by them and allow the complainant to remit the  amount in the material bill in reasonable installments at the opposite parties’ inclination.

               6. For the forgoing facts and finding of the present case herein above, we are of the

view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed, and the same is dismissed.

          The complaint is disposed accordingly. The parties are left to bear with their own cost.

          Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August  2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compared by:-