DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  25^th day of  May, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                               Date of Filing: 07/10/2021  

                         CC/166/2021

Mohammed Iqbal,

S/o Late Sraju,

Palathinkal House, Thottakkara P.O.,

Ottappalam, Palakkad – 679 102.                                    -                       Complainant

       (By Adv. M/s K. Dhananjayan &  K. Sankaran Kutty)

                                                                                                Vs

1.         Kerala State Electricity Board,

            (KSEB), Regd. Office at Vyduthi  Bhavan,

            Pattom Palace (PO),   Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

2.         The Chairman and Managing Director,
            Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.(KSEB),

            Vyduthi Bhavanam, Pattom Palace (PO),

            Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004

3.         The Assistant Engineer (A.E)

            Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB)

            Electrical Section, Ottapalam, Palappuram (PO),

            Palakkad – 679 103.

4.         Ramachandran T.G.

            KSEB Spot Bill Reader,

             Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. (KSEB),

            Electrical Section, Ottapalam, Palappuram (PO),

            Palakkad – 679 103.                                        -                       Opposite parties

(O.P.s   by Adv. Remika C.)    

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complainant is aggrieved by the by a bill dated 09/07/2021 for Rs. 13,633/- issued by the O.P. Board. The 4^th O.P. meter reader, upon enquiry, informed the complainant that the excess bill was issued as bills for 14/01/2021 for 12/03/2021 was issued taking average consumption since the complainant’s gates were locked. Since the complainant’s gate is never locked the meter reader was lying. Complainant’s average bimonthly consumption for the past one year was for amounts bordering Rs. 2,500/-. A representation made by the complainant to the 3^rd O.P. was replied with a communication justifying their conduct. The division of units of electricity consumed by the O.P.s, as stated in the reply communication is not correct. Method of calculation is not right.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. This is the gist of the complainant’s pleading.
2. The opposite parties filed version without complying with a directive from this Commission to separate the documents from the version to facilitate easy marking of documents as Exhibits at the time of evidence. As the O.P. failed to comply with this direction, the version was rejected. Thereafter, without separating the documents, the O.P. filed a Review Application as R.A. 20/2022. The said R.A. was dismissed as there was no error apparent on the face of records warranting review. But the O.P. stoutly refused to comply with this Commission’s directive. Hence the complaint proceeded as if the O.P. was ex-parte.
3. Since the complaint proceeded ex-parte, it is only necessary that the complaint proves a prima facie case.
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A5. Exts. A1 and A2 are two original bills issued by the O.P. Ext. A1 in unreadable. Hence Ext. A1 cannot be relied upon in evidence. Ext. A3 is a complaint filed by the complaint before the 3^rd O.P. Ext. A4 is a reply issued by the 3^rd O.P. to Ext. A3 complaint. Ext. A5 is a receipt of payment made by the complainant.
5. At this juncture it is made clear that a prima facie evidence is where the complainant proves by his evidence that the complainant is entitled to an order that he seeks. Merely because the O.P. is exparte or that they have failed to file their version, complainant’s evidence will not be sufficient to prove a prima facie case. Merely because a complainant’s pleadings are uncontroverted, allowing the complaint without appreciation of evidence might lead to absurdity or cause embarrassment to the procedure adopted by this Commission.
6. Complainant’s case is that as per the bill issued on 09/07/2021 the O.P. raised a demand for   Rs. 13,633/-. The reading is faulty and the complainant was paying charges only in the range of Rs. 2000/- only. Presently the complainant apprehends that he will have to pay over Rs. 5000/- per bi-month.
7. In order to substantiate his case, documents as stated supra is produced and marked.  None of the documents show the amount the complainant had been paying for the last one year. Exts. A1 and A2 are the documents the complainant relies on to show that his charges come to around Rs. 2,500/- only. But these are the bills which the O.P. claimed to have issued since the door was locked. Therefore the complainant ought to have produced the bills which was admitted by both the parties or called for documents to prove his case. Post issuance of disputed bill, the complainant apprehends issuance of invoices for exorbitant amounts. Mere apprehension of the complainant will not give rise to cause of action.
8. In the absence of any evidence to form a reference upon which the illegality of the disputed bill can be presumed or deduced, this Commission is unable to come to a conclusion to adjudicate that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. The complainant has failed to prove a prima facie case.
9. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open court on this the 25^th day of May,  2023.

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                President

          Sd/-                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Original unreadable invoice

Ext.A2 – Original invoice dated 12/03/2021.

Ext.A3 – Copy of complaint dated 09/07/2021.

Ext.A4 – Copy of reply dated 22/07/2021.

Ext.A5 – Original of invoice dated 19/07/2021.

 Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil  

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.