IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 30^th  day of September , 2011

Filed on 14.05.2008

Present

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

in

C.C.No.97/2008

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. The complainant is running a small scale production unit in the name and style 'Kottezham Rubber Products' for her livelihood. The opposite parties supply electrical energy to the complainant vide 'Three Face Connection' including the same in L T IV tariff. The complainant has been unfailingly remitting the energy charges from time to time issued by the opposite parties on inspection of the electric meter installed therein. When matters stood thus, on 1st September 2009 the personnel from 'Anti Power Theft Squad' of the opposite parties inspected the complainant premise, and slapped on her a bill for an amount of Rs.241584/- (Rupees Two lakhs forty one thousand  and Five hundred  and fifty four only)  Even according to the report or Mahazar drew up by the opposite parties, there was no allegation to the effect that the complainant effected any sort of manipulations in the meters. The opposite parties arrived on the said conclusion either on being induced by some malevolent people or on some sort of unfounded surmises. The complainant was also required to remit surcharge of Rs.37,701-(Rupees Thirty seven thousand and Seven Hundred and one only).  The complainant was demanded to remit the aforesaid amounts by 15 monthly installments. The complainant, thus subject to contentions was forced to remit seven installments of the said amount coming up to Rs.138218/-(Rupees One lakh thirty eight thousand  and two hundred and  eighteen only ). The complainant is not liable to pay to the opposite parties any amount as to the aforesaid bill. The opposite parties committed service deficiency. The complainant sustained monetary as well as mental woes. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.  

2. On notice being served the opposite parties turned up and filed joint versions. The crux of the opposite parties contentions is that the opposite parties issued the material bill for the amount to which the opposite parties are legally entitled to. According to the opposite parties, the complainant committed no manipulation or tampering in the meter. The energy consumed by the complainant was not being properly read by the meter consequent to impairment in the equipment 'current transformer' which serves to assess the consumed energy correctly. As a result, only one third of the energy used up was recorded in the meter, the opposite parties contend. The opposite party demanded the charges for the energy the complainant made use of  the complainant is liable to payout the said amount in the bill. The opposite parties never committed deficiency of service. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties forcefully contend.

3.  The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the husband of the complainant as PWl, and the documents Exbts. Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Engineer was examined as RWl and the documents Exbts. BI to B4 were marked.

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

(a) Whether the complainant is liable to pay the material bill amount?

(b) Whether  the opposite parties committed deficiency of  service?

5.  On a plain perusal of the materials brought on record, it is unfolded that the complainant has concededly nothing to do with the alleged shortcoming as to the reading of the energy consumed by the complainant. According to the opposite parties, owing to the imperfection of joining of two wires that connect 'current transformer' and the 'electric meter' only the 2/3 of the energy consumed by the complainant was got recorded in the Meter. To put it otherwise, with the result of the aforesaid flaw with regard to the wiring, 1/3 of the energy the complainant consumed had escaped the  reading by the meter. Thus interestingly, at the first blush itself, it can be seen that even if the reasoning of the opposite parties is assumed to be true, it is not for any mistake on the end of the complainant that the meter failed to read the energy allegedly used up by the complainant. What is more, it is worthwhile to notice that the opposite parties have not adopted any useful steps to prove that the electrical energy consumed by the complainant since 2006 was not being accurately got recorded in the meter. According to the opposite parties, the inadvertent slipup come about in connecting the 'current transformer' and the 'electric meter' account for the inexactitude of the reading of the consumed energy by the meter. The opposite parties, it appears save making statements, adopted no meaningful steps to substantiate or the least bit to support the contentions the opposite parties, as assertively advanced. In this context, as we have already observed, for arguments sake even though the contentions of the opposite parties are assumed to be true the complainant cannot be held liable for the mistake if any committed by the opposite parties. More particularly so, the fault allegedly cropped up with regard to the meter reading is largely technical in nature which the opposite parties miserably failed to bring home. It is also to be noted that despite with regard to the dispute as to the material bill the complainant has remitted a fair portion of the bill in dispute. The complainant has no malicious intention to make illegal gains, as is seen from the materials before us. Thus viewing from any perspective, we are persuaded to come to the conclusion that the case advanced by the complainant is worthy of acceptance. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.

In the result, the interim order granted is made absolute· The material bill stands cancelled.  However, the complainant though not a willful defaulter is not entitled to get the refund of the remitted portion of the material bill. We hereby restrained the parties to take any steps namely disconnection, issuing unnecessary notices etc, that may disturb the complainant in future. The instant dispute as to the disputed bill shall ends up here for ever.

Complaint  stands disposed accordingly.  No order as to compensation and  cost. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of September   2011.

                                                                                                 Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah

Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan:

                                                                                                 Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

  PW1                   -           Sri. K.K. Anirudhan (Witness)

 Ext.A1              -           Receipt dated 12-09-2007

          Ext.A2               -           Letter dated 20.09.2007

Ext. A3               -           Letter dated 27/09/2007

Ext.A4                -            Letter dated 26.09.2007

Evidence of the Opposite parties:-   

RW1                  -           P.X. Jackson (Witness)

Ext.B1                -           Letter dated 01-09-2007

Ext.B2                -           Meter reading statement dated

Ext.B3               -           Statement dated 9/2009

Ext.B4                -           Letter dated 09/2007

           // True Copy //

                                                                                    By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- sh/-     

Compared by:-