IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 30^th day of October, 2009

Filed on 18.09.2006

Present

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

in

C.C.No.201/06

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Smt.Indira R Pillai,                          1.         Kerala State Electricity Board,

Indira Sadanam,                                                     Trivandrum,

Karumady, Ambalappuzha.                         Represented by its Secretary.

(By Adv.Sreekumar.K)                            

2.         Senior Superintendent,

                                                                              Electrical Punja section,           

Thakazhy.

3.         Sub Engineer (incharge),

Punja Section,

Thakazhy.

                                                                                    (By Adv.R.Sanalkumar)

O R D E R

   SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

               The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows. -  The complainant is the owner of the building bearing No. XIII /353.  There are four shop rooms in the said building. The complainant is conducting her own business in three of the rooms. The remaining other one has been let out for business activity. The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. She availed separate electric connections for her own used rooms and the other one. The electric connection of her own used shop rooms bear consumer No.3313 and the tariff is categorized as slab VII- B and the rented out one bears the consumer NO.6048 and classified as VI-C. The complainant was remitting energy charges promptly and properly. Meanwhile, the complainant sought the 2^nd opposite party to convert the slab of the connection bearing No.6048 from VI-C to VII-B. The same was allowed by the 2^nd opposite party. There after, the complainant on 7^th July 2006 went abroad. By this time the 2^nd opposite party with out any notice changed the meter of the electric connection carrying consumer No.3313, and on 29^th July 2006 issued a demand cum disconnection notice bearing No.A.A 56195 for an amount of Rs.5240/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred forty only) as arrears from the complainant. Further the opposite party changed the slab of the 3313 numbered connection from VII - B to VII - A. The complainant never defaulted the payment of the bill. With out proper notice or reason, the demand notice was issued. Similarly was, the slab changed. The 2^nd opposite party is not entitled to demand the arrears of two years for the same is barred by limitation. Aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum.

1. Notice was sent. The opposite parties turned up and filed version. The opposite parties contended that the complainant’s electric connection bearing No.3313 was given under the tariff LT VII-A and not under LT VII-B. Consequent upon a clerical error the bill was being issued in tariff VII-B. The bill ought to have been issued in tariff VII-A. The bill in issue has to be issued to the complainant for the amount the complainant owed to the opposite party due to the error crept into the calculation of the bill amount by the opposite party. Further, the meter was replaced by an electronic one for the former was mere mechanical. No charge was imposed for the replacement of the meter. The 2^nd opposite party is authorized to issue the said bill. The demand of the opposite party is not barred by limitation. The complainant is not entitled to any of the relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed, the opposite party asserts.

2. On the side of the complainant, the complainant herself was examined as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A7 were marked.  ExbtAl is the ownership certificate. A2 to A4 are electricity bills, A5&A6 are passport and concerned documents and A 7 is the demand notice. The evidence of the opposite parties consists of the oral testimony of the 2^nd opposite party as Rw1 and the documents Exbts. Bl to B 3 were marked.  Exbt B1 is the copy of the agreement, B2 is the copy of the installation report, and B3 is the copy of the estimate report.

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

      (a) whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by the 2^nd opposite party?

(b) whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for in the complaint?

4. The complainant case is that the complainant was effecting payment of the bill with out fail. The opposite party all on a sudden issued a demand cum disconnection notice for an amount of Rs.5240/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred forty only) as arrears from the complainant. We meticulously analyzed the materials tendered by both the parties. It is interesting to note the plea of the opposite parties that actually the electric connection bearing No.3313 was given under the tariff LT  VII-A.  But by a clerical error the bill was being issued in tariff VII-B. The bill ought to have been issued in tariff VII-A. We perused the Exbt A1 demand notice and nothing was seen therein that suggest as to the said contention of the opposite party. Exbt A1 does not appear to reflect anything as to the circumstance or reason by which the energy charge caused to be fallen in due by the complainant.  As far as the complainant is concerned, virtually Exbt. A1 demand notice seems bolt from the blue. Even if the version of the opposite party is assumed to be true, the blame for the amount overdue cannot be put on the shoulder of the complainant. Still the opposite party placed the complainant at the grip of apprehension of disconnection and harassment. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant sustained mental agony and harassment.

In view of the facts and findings herein above, demand cum disconnection notice bearing No.A.A.56195 for an amount of Rs.5240/-(Rupees five thousand two hundred forty only) 29^th July 2006 stands set aside. Further the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount  of Rs.1500/-(Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as cost.  The opposite parties are directed to pay the said amounts with in 45 days from the receipt of this order. In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2009.

            Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi          

Appendix:-

 Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Indira R Pillai(Witness)

Ext. A1            -           Ownership Certificate  

Ext.A2             -           Electricity bill

Ext.A3             -           Electricity bill

Ext.A4             -           Electricity bill

Ext.A5             -           Passport and concerned documents of Indira R Pillai

Ext.A6             -           Passport and concerned documents of Ramachandran Pillai

Ext.A7             -           Demand notice

Evidence of the opposite parties:- 

RW1                -           R.Babu (Witness)

RW2                -           Mohankumar.T.N (Witness)

Ext.B1              -           Copy of the agreement

Ext.B2              -           Copy of the installation report

Ext.B3              -           Copy of the estimate report

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-