Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/173

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

K M VARKEY - Opp.Party(s)

B SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO. 173/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:30/06/2016

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.80/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam, order dated : 27.12.2014)

 

PRESENT

 

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                       : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. Kerala State Electricity Board

          Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Gandhinagar Section,

          Kottayam – 686008.

 

2. Secretary,

          KSEB Vydyuthi Bhavan,

          Pattom,

          Thiruvananthapruam-695004.

 

          By Adv: Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair & Sri. K. Radhakrishnan)

 

                                                                                                          Vs.

 

RESPONDENT

 

          K.M. Varkey,

          Kuttikkalayil House,

          Gandhinagar P.O.,

          Mudiyoorkara,

          Kottayam – 686008.

 

          (By Adv: Sri. Asok Kumar (Amicus curiae)

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants were the opposite parties in CC No.80/2014 in the CDRF, Kottayam.  The complainant respondent was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties his consumer number bering 4862 of Gandhi Nagar Electrical Section.   It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was remitting the electricity bills regularly.  But for few months prior to the filing of the complaint the electricity bills were very high compared to earlier bills.  On examining the bills the complainant found that another consumer number was mentioned in the bills.  The complainant demanded bills in his name and consumer number. But the opposite parties filled to issue the same and threatened the complainant with disconnection of electricity in case the bill amount was not remitted.  Alleging that the act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, the complainant approached the consumer forum for an order directing the opposite parties to issue bills in consumer number 4862.  Refund of the amounts remitted was also sought.

          2.      The opposite parties filed version and contended that the old consumer number of the complainant was 4862 but the new one is 1146280000372.  But due to mistake the name of the consumer was wrongly entered as Mathew Nikolas instead of K.M. Varkey, the complainant.  But there was no error in recording the meter reading and working status of the meter was proper.  The name of the consumer is already corrected to K.M. Varkey and bills are issued to the complainant accordingly.

          3.      Before the consumer forum proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts. A1 to A5 marked on the side of the complainant constituted the only evidence.  The consumer forum holding that there was deficiency in service directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/-  to the complainant.  Other consequential orders were also issued.  The opposite parties are challenging the order of the consumer forum.

4.      Obviously the alleged new consumer number was necessitated when billing was computerised by the opposite parties Even the complainant has no case that he was not consuming electricity or that there was error in recording consumption. So obviously the bills issued by the appellants related to consumption of electricity by the complainant.   The only case is that the bill was issued in the name of another person.   The definite assertion in the version is that when the error came to the notice of the opposite parties necessary correction is made and bills are being issued in the name of the complainant.  So the main prayer in the complaint to give a direction to issue bills in the correct name was not granted by the consumer forum.  Nevertheless the consumer forum found that there was deficiency in service.   It is pertinent to mention that the dispute relates to the consideration to be paid for the electricity consumed by the complainant and there can be hardly any deficiency in service in the matter of payment consideration, the electricity charges.  Since the complainant had availed service in the form of consumption of electricity supplied by the appellants, it is his obligation to pay the consideration.   The attempt is to wriggle out of the obligation by saying that wrong name is entered in the bills issued to him.  A consumer forum cannot sit in appeal over such errors committed by the electricity office in day to day functioning for no deficiency in service can be attributed.   In short, the consumer forum erred in allowing the complaint.   Hence the appeal is liable to be allowed.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of consumer forum, Kottayam in CC No.80/2014 dated. 27.12.2014 is set aside.  The complaint is dismissed.  The parties are directed to bear their costs in the appeal.

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMEBR

 

 

V.V. JOSE          : MEMBER

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO. 173/2015

JUDGMENT DATED:30/06/2016

 

nb