IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of January 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 10/2021 (Filed on 18/01/2021)
Petitioner : Babu P.A.
Parackal,
Madukka P.O.
Kottayam - 686513
(Adv. Sony K. Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board.
Mundakkayam – 686513
(2) Secretary,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram – 695004
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Deepthy S. Nath and Adv. Malavika Suresh)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party vide Consumer No.24612 in the month of December, 2019. The opposite parties disconnected the electrical connection of the complainant alleging that there is an arrear of electricity charges for the month of December, 2019. Thereafter on 27-12-2019, the complainant paid the electricity charges. It is alleged in the complaint that the opposite parties disconnected the service connection of the complainant without serving any notice to the complainant. The disconnection of the electricity during the Christmas season caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and his family members. It is further alleged in the complaint that though the arrear amount was paid on 27-12-2019, the opposite parties reinstated the service connection of the complainant only after 36 days. The request of the complainant to reconnect service connection of the complainant to the opposite parties became vain. According to the complainant, the above said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused much hardship and loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,25,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.5000/-
Upon notice, opposite parties appeared before this Commission and filed joint version contenting as follows.
The opposite parties admitted that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party under LT IA Tariff. The service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 12-12-2019. Thereafter, the service connection was restored on 27-12-2019, after remittance of the arrears by the complainant. The opposite parties have served disconnection notice to the complainant on 06-09-2019 and 12-11-2019. In the notices issued on 12-11-2019, it was stated that there was an arrear of bimonthly bill, which was issued on 06-09-2019. It is submitted by the opposite parties that the opposite parties disconnected the service connection of the complainant, when the electricity charges that is four months became due from the complainant.
Though the electricity connection was disconnected on 12-12-2019, the complainant paid the arrears only on 27-12-2019 and the service connection of the complainant was restored on the same date. The meter reading of the complainant as of 12-12-2019 was 3735 unit and same was as on 27-12-2019. The meter reading of the complainant as of 19-01-2020 was 3745 unit and it shows that there was a consumption of 10 units between that period. The complainant did not launch any petition regarding the disconnection of his service connection before any of the authorities of the opposite parties. The service connection of the complainant was again disconnected on 12-02-2020, the same day on which the complainant paid the arrears. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.A1 and A2 from the side of the complainant. The 1st opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext.B1 to B5 from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record, we would like to consider following issues.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs?
Point No.1 and 2.
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under LT IA tariff vide consumer No.1156381024612. The specific case of the complainant is that the opposite parties without intimating and giving any prior notice to the complainant disconnected the electricity connection during the month of December 2019 and the same was restored only after 36 days from the date on which he cleared the arrears. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party on 27-12-2019 to the complainant for an amount of Rs.230/-. It is admitted by the opposite parties that the service connection of the electricity of complainant was disconnected on 12-12-2019 due to the non-payment of electricity charges by the complainant for the billing period of 9-2019 and 11-2019. Ext.B1 is the demand and disconnection notice issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant on 08-09-2019 proves that the opposite parties demanded to pay Rs.126/- towards the electricity charges on or before 18-09-2019. It is proved by the Ext.B2 that it is the demand and disconnection notice issued by the opposite parties on 12-11-2019 that the opposite parties are demanded payment of Rs.100/- towards electricity charges on or before 21-11-2019.
Thus it is evident from the Ext.B1 and B2 that the opposite parties are in the habit of issuing regular demand notice to the complainant bimonthly for the electricity charges. Ext.B3 is the demand and disconnection notice issued by the opposite parties on 15-01-2020. Ongoing through Ext.B3, we can see that service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 12-12-2019 and final billing of 3735 unit and the same was reconnected on 27-12-2019 at initial reading on 3735. It is further pertinent to note that the initial reading as on 15-01-2020 was 3735 and final reading was 3745. There was a consumption of 10 unit for the last 2 months. Ext.B4 proves that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 12-12-2019 and final meter reading of 3750 and the same was reconnected on 15-02-2020 at a final reading of 3750 units. As per Ext.B4, the initial meter reading of the complainant as on 11-03-2020 was 3750 unit and final meter reading was 3758 unit and the consumption of the said billing period was 8 units. Ongoing through Ext.B1 and B2, we can see that the average consumption of the complainant is below 20 units.
As mentioned above, the complainant paid the arrear amount which was for the bimonthly billing cycle from 09-19 to 11-19 on 27-12-2019, though the complainant alleged that the electricity connection was restored only after 36 days from the date of payment of arrears. Ext.B3 proves that the same was reconnected on 27-12-2019, that is the date on which complainant paid the arrear amount.
It is proved by the Ext.B4 that the service connection of the complainant was again disconnected during the month of February, 2020.
Ongoing through the Ext.B1 to B4, we can see that the complainant was irregular in payment of electricity charges. On a close evaluation of the above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with cogent evidence and the complaint is to be dismissed. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of January. 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Receipt dtd.27-12-19 for Rs.230/- by opposite party
A2 – Letter dtd.31-01-2020 before Hon’ble Electricity Board Minister
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Demand and disconnection notice dtd.08-09-19
B2 – Demand and disconnection notice dtd.12-11-19
B3 – Demand and disconnection notice 15-01-2020
B4 – Demand and disconnection notice dtd.11-03-2020
B5-Colelction remittance details from 01-19 to 05-22
By Order
Assistant Registrar
