IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Friday the 30^th day of January, 2009

Filed on 14.11.2005

Present

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

in

C.C.No.176/05

between

Complainant:-                                            Opposite Parties:-

           Haroon, Mavunkal House,                  1.         K.S.E.B, Rep. by Secretary,

           Kakkazham.P.O, Managing Partner,               Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

           Spillway Ice Olant,                                          Pattom.P.O,

           Purakkad                                                         Thiruvananthapuram

           (By Adv.E.Rafeek)

                                                                       2.         Executive Engineer Electrical,                                                                                   Major Section, Ambalappuzha.

3.     Assistant Executive Engineer,

                                                                        Electrical Section, Ambalappuzha

                                                                        (By Adv.H.Hamsa Rawather)

4.      Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Higher Section,

Ambalappuzha.

O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH ( PRESIDENT)

The complainant’s case is as follows: - The complainant is running an ice plant in the name and style' Spill way Ice plant'. He is a consumer of the opposite parties.  Earlier the said ice plant belonged to one Mr. Jabbar and the complainant purchased the ice plant from him. The energy connection still stands in his name bearing the consumer No. 7424. As such the bills as to the said connection were being issued in the name of Jabbar, and the complainant was paying off all the bills without fail. When matters stood thus, the opposite party issued an invoice carrying No.87753 dated 5^th  October 2005 for an amount of Rs.58446/-(Rupees fifty eight thousand four hundred and forty six only).  The complainant on 27^th  October 2005 cleared off the said bill. There after another invoice bearing No.87605 dated 25^th October 2005 for an amount of Rs.3I518/-(Rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eighteen only) was issued to the complainant. It was stated in the said invoice as 'short assessment of CC for 5/2000&6/2000.  As a matter of fact, the complainant concern was closed up during the said period viz. during 5^th & 6^th months of 2000. The complainant is not liable to pay of the said bill. The opposite parties are disentitled to the bill, more so the same is barred by limitation. The said bill is with out any bonafides and base. The intention of the opposite parties is to harass the complainant. Aggrieved by this the complainant approached this Forum seeking compensation and other relief.

2.  Notices were sent. The opposite parties save the 2^nd one appeared, and the 3^rd opposite party filed version for himself and for and behalf of the 1^st and the 4^th opposite parties. The important contentions of the opposite parties are the complainant is not a consumer as defined by the provisions of the Consumer protection Act and Mr. Abdul Jabbar is the real owner and the consumer of the electric connection No.7424. As such, the complainant has no right to file the instant complaint.  It was true that the ice plant was locked up during 5^th & 6^th months of 2000,  but on 7/2000 the opposite party found the meter faulty. Hence the bill in issue was issued to the complainant on taking the average consumption of the complainant by the next three months. To realize the arrears of energy charges, no limitation is applicable, the opposite party fervently argues.  The bill was issued legally and the opposite parties have every right to recover the said energy charges from the complainant. In the event of non-payment the opposite parties are entitled to disconnect the said connection. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite party emphasizes.

 3.  The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant as Pw1, and the documents Exbt Al to A3 were marked.  Exbt Al is the bill bearing No.87605, A2 is the bill bearing No.85753 and A3 is the receipt of the payment of the A2 bill.  On the side of the opposite parties the 3rd opposite party was examined as Rw1, and the documents Exbts Bl and B2 were marked.  Exbt B 1 is the copy of the meter reading register and B2 is the copy of the inspection report by the Accounts Officer.

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

(a)  whether the invoice issued by the opposite parties is unlawful?

(b)  whether the complainant is entitled to the relief be sought?

5.  The complainant contends that the ice plant was locked up in the months of May and June in the year 2000.  Still the opposite party issued an invoice bearing No.87605 dated 25^th October 2005 for an amount of Rs.31518 -(Rupees thirty one thousand five hundred eighteen only) to the complainant for the above said period.  On the contrary, the opposite party argues that the complainants firm was closed up during the material period. Hence the reading of the energy consumed by the complainant during the said months was not available to the opposite party.  However, when the ice plant reopened, the meter therein was found defective and the final reading was invisible. The opposite party, taking into account the average of the next three months' consumption and commuted the amount in the bill in issue. We perused the material available on record.  The counsels for the parties take us through the evidence let in by them. On a plain perusal of the documents Exbts B I and B2, it can apparently be seen that the meter was out of order during the material time and the opposite party replaced the same.  At the same time, it appears that the complainant does not dispute the said contention of the opposite party that the meter was replaced being inoperative.  In the light of this, the opposite party's further contention that the amount projected in the material bill is the average of the next three months' consumption of energy by the complainant assumes significance.  The facts and circumstances of the present case lead us to the inevitable conclusion that the contentions advanced by the complainant lack substance or merit. We observe that the complaint must fail.

In view of the discussion made herein above, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

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

Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                 -           Said Mohammed Haroon (Witness)

Ext.A1              -           The bill bearing No.87605

Ext.A2              -           The bill bearing No.85753

Ext.A3              -           The receipt of t5he payment of the A2 bill

Evidence of the Opposite Parties:-

RW1                -           Chandrasenan.M.V (Witness)

Ext.B1              -           The copy of the meter reading register

Ext.B2 -           The copy of the inspection report by the Accounts Officer

// True Copy //

                                                                                By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

 Typed by:- k.x/-       

Compared by:-