By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant is a consumer of the respondents vide electricity connection No.12273. He is undertaking the complainant firm namely Royal bus body works for his livelihood. He has been remitting the electricity bills without making any default. The respondents issued a penal bill dt. 4.8.08 for Rs.29761/- and informed that the supply would be disconnected if the amount is not paid on or before 19.8.08. Even though the respondents gave the normal electricity bill, they did not receive the amount without remitting the penal bill. The reason for giving the penal bill is not informed and no inspection had been conducted at the premises. So the issue of penal bill without any inspection or preparing mahazar amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint filed.
2. The averments in the counter filed by the respondents are that the complainant is conducting the business for making profit by employing many workers. Hence he is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The bill issued on 4.8.08 is not a penal bill. It is a short assessment bill for Rs.29,761/- prepared on the basis of the audit conducted by the Regional Audit Officer. A notice was also issued in this regard. A calculation sheet has also been issued along with the notice. As the bill was due from the complainant he was asked to pay the arrear bill. The defective meter was replaced on July 2005 and the short assessment bill was prepared on the basis of average consumption of electricity from 8/2005 to 1/2006. The short assessment bill was issued as per the audit report. So no separate inspection is required. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
(1) Is the complainant liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P7 series and Ext. R1. No oral evidence has been adduced by the complainant or the respondent.
5. Points: The complaint is filed against the Ext. P1 bill. The complainant has stated that it is issued without making any inspection or preparing a mahazar. So he claims that it is deficiency in service in issuing such a bill without any notice or information. But the respondents denied it. They have stated that the Ext. p1 is not a penal bill but a short assessment bill. It is issued as per the report furnished by the Regional Audit Officer. The defective meter was replaced on July 2005 and 5.6.2007. And the short assessment bill is prepared on the basis of the average consumption of electricity after replacing the meter. A notice along with the calculation statement was given to the complainant. As Ext. P1 is prepared on the basis of audit report no separate inspection is required.
6. The complainant produced Exts. P1 to P7 series documents and the document produced by the respondents is marked as Ext. R1. The complainant has stated that Ext. P1 is a penal bill. But it is stated in Ext. P1 itself that it is a short assessment bill. And the period is stated as 1/05 to 5/05 and 4/07 to 6/07. The details of amount calculated are stated in the accompanying calculation sheet. Ext. R1 also reveals the method of calculation. Ext. P2 is evident that the complainant was informed of inspection and the shortage in collection. Since the Ext. P1 is issued to make good the loss sustained to the respondents and also for the charges of electricity consumed by the complainant he is liable to pay the Ext. P1 bill amount.
7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of May 2013.
