BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 123/2003 Filed on 17/03/2003

Dated: 30..04..2010

Complainant:

P. Surendran, Varuvila Veedu, Naruvamoodu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

(Appeared in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Jagadeeshan, Oversear, Naruvammoodu Electricity Office, Naruvammoodu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Jayakumaran Nair, Meter Reader, Balaramapuram Electricity Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Jayan, Lineman, Naruvammoodu Electricity Office, Thiruvananthapuram.

Addl. 4^th opp. Party

4. Asst. Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B. Balaramapuram, Balaramapuram – P.O.

5. Secretary, K.S.E.B, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 7, that he has been remitting the current charge regularly without default, that the meter in the said connection was running without any defect, while so 1^st opposite party replaced the said meter on the ground that the meter was not running, against which complainant filed complaints before Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer and Vigilance but no actions were taken against the officials concerned. It is submitted that due to the above said complaints being filed against the officials concerned, opposite parties reacted heavily with conversion of tariff in his another connection to consumer No. 3467 which finally led to disconnection of service to consumer No.3467. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

3. Opposite parties 1 to 3 did not turn up to contest the case despite the service of notice upon them. No version filed by opposite parties 1 to 3. Hence opposite parties 1 to 3 remained exparte.

4. Additional 4^th opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that consumer No.7 is registered under domestic tariff and the consumer is paying electric charges regularly, that according to the availability of energy meter Board Authorities usually change the faulty meters in the consumers' premises, that since the meter in the said connection was found faulty, opposite parties replaced the faulty meter with new one, that the faulty meter of the said connection was replaced according to the report of field staff and after conducting necessary inspections by the Board Officials, that consumer No.3467 is registered in domestic tariff, that the said connection later used for religious purpose/place hence opposite parties changed tariff into VI A, that the consumer made default in paying current charges regularly though Board Authorities issued notices to remit the dues. Consumer failed to remit the dues. So the connection was disconnected to consumer No.3467 after issuing proper notices as per the rules and regulations and the connection was dismantled later. Opposite parties referred the matter to District Collector for realising the outstanding dues from the consumer towards KSEB through Revenue Recovery Proceedings. Hence 4^th opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation. If so, at what amount?

In support of the complaint, complainant has been examined as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P10. In rebuttal, additional 4^th opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.

4. It has been the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 7 under domestic category and has been remitting the current charge regularly without default. It has also been the case of the complainant, that the meter in the said connection was running without any defect while so, opposite parties' Overseer, replaced the said meter on the ground that the meter was not running, which forced him to file complaints against the officials concerned before Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and Vigilance but no action was taken so far. It has also been the case of the complainant that it is due to the above said complaints being filed against the officials concerned, the officials from opposite parties reacted heavily with conversion of tariff in his another connection to consumer No. 3467 and which finally led to disconnection of consumer No.3467. Ext. P1 is the copy of bill dated 1/11/01 under Tariff I A. Ext. P2 is the copy of the bill dated 1/3/02 under tariff VI A for Rs.123/-. Ext. P3 is the receipt dated 7/3/2002 for Rs.123/-. Ext. P4 is the copy of the Enquiry Report of Assistant Engineer (Vigilance). As per Ext. P4 Enquiry Report, the allegations of the complaint are not correct. Ext. P6 is the copy of letter from Deputy Chief Engineer to complainant along with copy of the meter changing register. On perusal of Ext. P6 meter changing register, it is seen that meter in connection with consumer No. 7 changed on 3/02. The connection to consumer No.3467 is seen disconnected after 1/7/02 and meter dismantled on 29/3/03. Ext. P7 is the copy of the dismantling notice dated 22/1/03 addressed to consumer No.3467 (A1-22) VI A. As per Ext. P7, consumer was directed to remit arrear bill of Rs.719/- upto 1/2003 on or before 15/2/2003, failing which he was informed therein that R.R proceedings will be initiated and service connection will be dismantled. Ext. P8 is the copy of the Dismantling Register. As per Ext. P8 it is seen that notice was issued and connection was dismantled due to default of payment. Ext. P9 is the copy of the spot billing – Demand collection statement. Ext. P10 is the copy of the Disconnection Register. A perusal of Ext. P10, reveals that connection No. 3467 was disconnected on 7/02. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that complainant has availed two service connection under consumer No. 7 and consumer No. 3467, that although both connections were given under domestic tariff, the consumer issued the electrical energy under consumer No. 3467 for temple purposes and hence tariff has been changed to LT VI A, that consumer has defaulted payment of current charges and hence the connection was disconnected and therearfter notice dated 22/1/03 was issued to the complainant informing him that if connection was not restored after clearing the arrears on or before dismantled, the dues will be recovered as per R.R proceedings. It is pertinent to point out complainant has remitted current charges under consumer No. 3467 upto 3/02. On a perusal of Ext. P6 register it is seen that meter under consumer No. 7 was changed prior to 3/02 that, after meter change, the pattern of bi-monthly consumption has been on the increase , that is from 87 units on 5/02, 104 units on 3/03, while prior to meter change the pattern of bi-monthly consumption was below 75 units; thereby it is crystal clear that prior meter was not properly functioned. The next allegation of the consumer is that tariff conversion under consumer No. 3467 was due to the impact of complaints against the KSEB Officials in connection with the alleged meter change under consumer No. 7. In this context, it is to be pointed out that as per Ext. P6 Register, meter reading under consumer No. 3467 is seen recorded therein from 1/3/02 to 1/1/03, whereas consumer had remitted current charge upto 3/02 only; thereby it is to be inferred that meter was there in the premises upto the date of dismantling. Further, as per Ext. P7 dated 22/1/2003 there was an arrear of Rs. 719/- which was due to opposite parties from the consumer, and consumer was directed to remit the same before 15/2/2003, failing which it was categorically stated in the notice that the connection will be dismantled and R.R proceedings will be initiated, from Ext. P7 notice it can be inferred that sufficient opportunity was given by opposite parties to the consumer to restore connection to consumer No.3467, as stipulated Regulation 34(c) ii of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Complainant has no specific case that opposite party has not issued bills after 3/02. Even otherwise if we admit that opposite party has not issued bills after 3/02, after receipt of the Ext. P7 notice, he could approach the opposite party to obtain the duplicate bills from the opposite parties. No attempt was made by the complainant to restore the connection. It is the specific contention of the opposite parties that tariff under consumer No. 3467 was changed due to current under domestic purpose being used for religious (temple) purpose, which was denied by the complainant in his cross examination, thereby the burden shifted to opposite parties to prove the same by examining the officials who had examined the premises. Though opposite parties failed to prove the reason for tariff change with cogent and clinching evidence, complainant cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in regard to disconenction of connection to consumer No. 3467 and its dismantling, since the same was done in accordance with the Provisions of Regulations. Further complainant has no prayer to restore connection to consumer No. 3467; what he wants is compensation. In view of the foregoing discussions, and evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion opposite parties have acted in accordance with Regulations. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of April, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.123/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Surendran

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Photocopy of bill dated 1//11/2001

P2 : " the bill dated 1/03/2002

P3 : " receipt dated 7/3/202 for Rs. 123/-

P4 : Copy of the enquiry report of Assistant Engineer (Vigilance)

P5 : Copy of letter from opp. Parties

P6 : " letter from Deputy Chief Engineer to complainant.

P7 : Photocopy of the dismantling notice dated 22/1/03

P8 : Copy of the dismantling Register

P9 : Copy of the spot billing demand collection statement

P10 : Copy of the Disconnection Register

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : Mini. S

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Photocopy of the dismantling notice dt. 22/1/03

D2 : " meter changing Register

D3 : " dismantling Register

D4 : " disconenction register

PRESIDENT