IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday  the 30^th  day of January, 2012

Filed on 27.06.2011

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.221/2011

between

                                                          O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant's case in a nutshell is as follows:- The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No. 13114-0. The average energy charge of the complainant was between Rs.4500/- & Rs.6500/-. When matters stood thus, the opposite parties on 6^th  June 2011 issued to the complainant a bill carrying No.290788 for an amount of Rs.89183/-(Rupees Eighty nine thousand  one hundred and  eighty three only ). On receipt of the above said bill the complainant requested the opposite parties to check up the meter fixed in the complainant premise. The meter on being   so checked by the opposite parties, the complainant was told that  there was  leakage of electric  energy which led to the recording of inflated quantity of electricity in  the meter. The 2^nd opposite  party who carried out the inspection of the meter assured the complainant that she would be issued fresh bill shortly. Strangely enough, the 3^rd opposite party on 22^nd June 2011, issued a letter to the complainant calling upon her to make payment of the aforesaid amount. The complainant over again approached the opposite parties seeking fresh eloquent bill. The complainant was intimidated and insulted. Feeling aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

             2.  On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the opposite parties' contention is that on being approached by the complainant, the opposite parties carried out the inspection of the meter installed in the premises of the complainant. It was detected that the incoming wire to the fuse unit on the consumer's side was torn and was in contact with the iron  distribution board. Resultantly, leakage of electric  energy took place. Thus, according to the opposite party energy loss and consequent recording of puffed up energy consumption is down to the mistake on the part of the complainant. In this context, the complainant is liable to pay the amount projected in the bill. The complaint is mere experimental. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties' service. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complainant is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties fervently contend.

              3.  The complainant's evidence consists of the affidavits and the documents Exbts

Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, affidavits were filed.

             4.  Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-

      (a) Whether the bill issued by the opposite parties is legal?

      (b) Whether the energy leakage was due to the mistake on the part of the           

             complainant?

     ( c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

5.  The complainant case is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant was paying of the energy charges without any failure. Yet the opposite parties, without any apposite basis abruptly issued an indistinct bill for an amount of Rs.89183/­(Rupees Eighty nine thousand one hundred  and eighty three only ). On complainant's complaint thereof as to the functioning of the meter the opposite parties set up in the complainant premise, the opposite parties conducted test of the said meter and offered to deliver fresh correct bill to the complainant. Notwithstanding the complainant's recurrent request, the opposite parties did not issue the modified bill as promised, but insisted to remit the earlier bill amount. According to the opposite parties, the meter fixed in the complainant premise was perfect. There was apparently leakage of energy which was attributable to the responsibility of the complainant. Holding in view the said contentions, we cautiously went through the materials placed on record by the parties. Concededly the complainant was paying of the energy charges without default. It appears that the core of the complainant's contention as to the material unexpected bill is that the meter was malfunctioning. To put it more explicitly, according to the complainant even the non-consumed extent of energy was being recorded in the said meter. It is pertinent to note that the complainant approached the opposite parties with the said allegation, and consequently the opposite parties tested the meter. The opposite parties detected that there was loss of energy by leakage, but the energy loss was due to the nonchalance on the part of the complainant. Thus it seems that even according to the opposite parties, the unit of energy recorded in the material meter was not the same consumed by the complainant. Concededly, the complainant has not consumed that much of energy recorded in the meter for which the bill in question was issued. The opposite parties allege that due to the deficiency on the part of the complainant, the energy was lost, and the same was got recorded on the meter for which the complainant alone is liable. We have already on umpteen occasions observed that mere making statements alone will not suffice. It must be substantiated or the least  bit supported by convincing evidence. Going by the entire materials available on record, no scrap of evidence is forthcoming on the part of the opposite party to bring home the allegation that the loss of energy and the consequent recording of the unused energy in the meter was as a result of the flaw on the part of the complainant. Moreover, even according to the opposite parties version itself, the leakage of electric energy was consequent to the wear and tear of the insulation of the incoming wire and touching of the same on the iron part of the meter. Most probably it must be inside the sealed meter. In this context, we are persuaded to hold that the leakage and loss of energy cannot be attributed to the complainant. On top of all these, the bill issued by the opposite party is mysterious and vague being ineloquent. In this circumstance, we have no course open but to accept the contention of the complainant. We hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to relief.

6.         In view of the facts and findings in the instant case, we hold that the Exbt Al bill dated 6^th June 2011 for an amount of Rs. Rs.89,183/-( Rupees Eighty nine thousand one hundred and  eighty three only ) issued to the complainant by the opposite parties stands cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh transparent bill taking into account the average electric consumption of the complainant prior to the disputed period as per law.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th   day of  January,   2012.

                                                                                                Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah (President)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

Ext. A1   -Electricity Bill dated 06-06-2011

Ext.A2   -Letter given to complainant  by opposite party dated 04.06.2011

Ext.A3   - Letter issued to complainant by opposite party dated  22.06.2011

Evidence of the Opposite parties:-  Nil

 By Order                                                                                                                                       

                                    Senior Superintendent

To

         Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.

Typed by:- sh/-

Compared by:-

     IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the 30^th   day of  January, 2012

Filed on 27-06-2011

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.221/2011

between

                                                                  O R D E R

            SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

            The matter has been heard in detail and Judgment was drawn up.  The other two members of the Forum dissented with the conclusion arrived on by the President.  The members so prepared a common order and the President drew up a separate one.   As per Section 14-2A of the Consumer Protection Act, the view of the majority of the District Forum will prevail and that shall be  the Forum’s final order.

            In view of the above, the complaint stands dismissed.

            Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of  January, 2012.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah

// True Copy //

                                                                                                            By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:-pr/-  Compared by:-