Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/11/97

RAJU ITTYERAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH VARGHESE

30 Nov 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/97
 
1. RAJU ITTYERAH
PLATHARA KOTTAYIL, MAVELIPPURAM, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,(CONSUMER NO:31097, ELCTRICH\KAL SECTION THRIKKAKARA)
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VYDYUTI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,KERALA STATE ELECTRICTY BOARD
ELECTRICKL SECTION, THRIKKAKARA.
3. THE SUB ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
ELECTRICAL SECTION THRIKKAKARA.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ Member
 HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/02/2011

Date of Order : 30/11/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

 

    C.C. No. 97/2011

    Between


 

Raju Ittyerah,

::

Complainant

Plathara Kottyil,

Mavelipuram,

Kakkanadu,

Ernakulam Dt.


 

(By Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran,

M/s. Rajesh & Rathis

Advocates, 35/191,

Automobile Road,

Palarivattom,

Kochi – 682 025)

 

And


 

1. Kerala State Electricity Board,

::

Opposite parties

Rep. by its Secretary,

Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity

Board, Electrical Section,

Thrikkakara.

3. The Sub-Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity

Board, Electrical Section,

Thrikkakara.


 

(Op.pts by authorised

representative)


 

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant and his family is residing in a double storied building. The complainant availed himself of separate electricity connections under LT I A category in the ground floor and the 1st floor of the building. The 1st floor of the house has been rented out. He has been paying the electricity charges promptly. While so on 17-12-2010, the 3rd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant stating that the electricity connection provided to the 1st floor was utilized for commercial purposes by conducting home stay which is liable to be charged under LT VII A tariff. In furtherance of the notice on 22-12-2010, a provisional penal bill to the tune of Rs. 51,925/- has been issued to the complainant due to the change in tariff from LT – IA to LT VII A for the period from January 2010 to November 2010. The complainant preferred appeal against the demand, but the 2nd opposite party rejected the same and issued the bill under dispute for the like amount. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards short assessment charges as he has been conducted a 'home stay' as alleged. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs :

  1. To set aside the impugned bill.

  2. To direct the opposite parties to continue with the future bills under LT IA tariff.

  3. To pay the costs of the proceedings.


 

2. The version of the opposite parties :

On 17-12-2010, the K.S.E. Board made an inspection in the premises of Consumer No. 30197 and found that the electricity being used for conducting 'home stay'. A provisional invoice was served on the complainant on 22-12-2010. On receipt of an objection against the bill, a personal hearing was conducted on 13-01-2011 and the finding in the provisional bill has been confirmed and the bill in question was served. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill.


 

3. Though the opposite parties filed their version, thereafter they did not contest further for their own reasons. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on his side. Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.


 

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get set aside the disputed bill?

  2. Whether the complainant is entitled to continue with the tariff under LT I A?

  3. Costs of the proceedings?


 

5. Point No. i. :- The following facts were not disputed by the parties :

  1. The complainant was served with Ext. A1 notice dated nil directing the complainant to remit the loss sustained by the opposite parties due to the misuse of electricity.

  2. The 2nd opposite party issued Ext. A2 bill along with Ext. A3 letter dated 22-12-2010 directing the complainant to pay Rs. 51,925/- towards penal assessment charges.

  3. The complainant preferred Ext. A4 appeal dated 27-12-2010 before the 2nd opposite party highlighting his grievances.

  4. The 2nd opposite party confirmed the findings in Ext. A2 bill vide Ext. A6 proceedings dated 18-01-2011.

  5. The complainant had submitted Ext. A5 letter dated 14-01-2011 to the 2nd opposite party to conduct a physical examination in the 1st floor of the building.

  6. The 2nd opposite party issued Ext. A7 final bill dated 21-01-2011 for Rs. 51,925/- rejecting the contentions of the complainant.


 

6. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 110/2011 dated 18-02-2011, this Forum directed the 2nd opposite party to refrain from disconnecting the electricity supply to Consumer No. 30197 of Thrikkakara Electrical Section.


 

7. According to the opposite parties, they had conducted an inspection on 17-12-2010 at the 1st floor of the residential building and found misuse of electricity. The complainant vehemently disputed the findings of the opposite parties. The opposite parties claim that they had conducted an inspection on 17-12-2010 into this matter. But there is nothing before us on record as to who conducted the same. Our reliance on this aspect would be elsewhere. Additionally and admittedly no documentary evidence is on record to show that the complainant had been misusing the electricity for the purpose other than domestic one which the opposite parties have challenged but miserably failed to prove for their own reasons. The opposite parties at least ought to have prepared a mahazar then and there while raising the allegations and obtained acceptance of the document by the complainant or the person in possession of the premises wherein they failed which again goes to weaken their argument.


 

8. It is worthwhile to note that the complainant has produced Ext. A9 rent deed dated 04-10-2010 between the complainant and the tenant, who occupied the 1st floor which goes to show that he has rented out the 1st floor of the building not as a home stay. In the above circumstances, we do not hold that the complainant had been conducting home stay for the relevant period. So, we are only to held that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill.


 

9. Point No. ii. :- Considering the findings on the 1st point naturally, the complainant is entitled to continue with the tariff under LT IA for domestic purposes.

 

10. Point No. iii. :- The matter having been met squarely though almost called for we do not order costs.


 

11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order as follows :

  1. The order in I.A. No. 1102011 dated 18-02-2011 is made absolute.

  2. We set aside Ext. A7 bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.

 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.


 

Forwarded/By Order,


 


 


 

Senior Superintendent.

 


 


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Complainant's Exhibits :-


 

Exhibit A1

::

A notice issued from the K.S.E. Board

A2

::

Consumer bill dt. 22-12-2010

A3

::

A letter dt. 22-12-2010

A4

::

A letter dt. 27-12-2010

A5

::

A copy of the letter dt. 14-01-2011

A6

::

Proceedings dt. 18-01-2011

A7

::

Consumer bill dt. 21-01-2011

A8

::

A letter dt. 21-01-2011

A9

::

An agreement dt. 04-10-2010

 

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

 

Depositions

::

Nil

 

=========


 

 
 
[HONORABLE MR. A.RAJESH]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE MR. PROF:PAUL GOMEZ]
Member
 
[HONORABLE MRS. C.K.LEKHAMMA]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.