BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of August 2018
Filed on : 25-09-2015
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.639/2015
Between
B. Shamsudeen IPS, : Complainant
Supdt. Of Police (Retd), (party-in-person)
Flat 1 B, Malabar Gate
Apartments,
P.O. Cochin-24.
And
Kerala State Electricity Board : Opposite party
(KSEB), Rep. by Asst. Executive (party-in-person)
Engineer, KSEB, Edapally,
Ccchin-24, Ernakulam.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant is a retired police officer from All India Service staying in flat No. 1 B, Malabar Gate Apartment, Edappally, since 1997, has an electric connection provided by KSEB, the opposite party with Consumer No. ending with 4895. The flat is a 2 bed room flat. The electricity bill p.m. used to be Rs. 600 to 700 . Seldom it went up to Rs. 1,000/-. On 11-09-2015 the opposite party had issued a bimonthly bill to the complainant demanding an amount of Rs. 4,081/- alleging electric consumion of 687 units in 2 months. Considering the frugal energy usage so much of electric consumption was not possible . The opposite party had installed a new energy meter on 29-02-2016 and the bill in dispute is the first bill after the installation of the new energy meter. There is some substantially wrong with the energy consumption meter and the complainant has been put to unnecessary hard ships. The complainant seeks a direction to be given to the opposite party not to insist on the payment of the said bill amounting to Rs. 4,081/-and also to direct the opposite party not to interrupt the power supply to the complainant. The complainant further seeks a direction to charge the average of the last 6 months bills.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party who appeared and contested the complaint contending inter-alia as follows:
3. The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant holds electric connections as narrated in the complaint. The bimonthly bill issued to the complainant is correct as per the consumption recorded in the meter installed premises of the complainant. The meter was found to be functioning properly. On the application of the complainant the meter was checked through the inspecting officers with the help of the test meter during the period 26-09-2015 to 01-10-2015. Both test meter and the original meter installed had shown the same power consumption . Therefore, the higher consumption recorded was due to the excess usage of electricity by the complainant. The complainant is bound to pay the bill for the electrical energy used by him. There is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii. Reliefs and costs.
5. The Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence Exbt. A1 to A5 on the side of the complainant and Exb5t. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. No oral evidence was adduced by both.
6. Issue No. i. The case was listed for evidence on 16-05-2016 and the complainant did not turn up. The opposite party was represented by the counsel. Therefore the documents produced by the party were marked in evidence. Ext. A1 is the photo copy of electricity bill dt. 11-09-2015 demanding a amount of Rs. 4,082/- from the complainant in respect of consumer No. ending with 4895 Exbt. A2 is the electricity bill issued on 18-01-2015 which required only 172 units for two months. Exbt. A3 electricity bill dated 13-02-2015 showed a consumer of 260 units for 2 months. Both the bills were paid by him as per Exbt. A4 and A5. The complainant has no case that he made a complaint before the Electricity board to get the meter rechecked for its accuracy. In the absence of any such move on the part of the complainant we had to presume that the official acts done by the employees of the opposite party were in good faith. The opposites party had assessed the consumption by using a test meter and found that there was no fault for the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. In the above circumstance, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Issue is therefore found against the complainant.
7. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of August 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Demand notice dt. 11-09-2015
A2 : Demand notice dt. 18-01-2015
A3 : Copy of demand notice dt. 13-05-2015
A4 : Copy of receipt dt. 23-03-2015
A5 : Copy of receipt No. 0674207
Opposite party's exhibits:
Exbt. B1 : True copy of test certificate
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
