IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday, the 30th day of November, 2011
Filed on 22.09.2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member) in
CC/No.230/2010
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.P.C. Joseph 1. KSEB., Represented by its
Rose Nivas, Karumady P.O. Chief Executive Engineer
Ambalappuzha Village Vaidhyuthi Bhavan
Alappuzha District. Thiruvananthapuram
2. The Asst. Engineer, KSEB
Puncha Section, Thakazhi
3. The Secretary, KSEB
Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom
Thiruvananthapuram
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.7416. The complainant has been using the energy for lighting 4 CFL lamps and two fans. The average amount of the bills issued by the opposite parties till 19th January 2010 was Rs.500/-. In the meanwhile, the opposite parties replaced the old meter with an afresh electronic meter. Thereafter, the bill amount began to go beyond Rs.2000/-. The complainant unsuccessfully lodged several complaints before the 2nd opposite party pointing out the malfunctioning of the new meter, which yielded no results. The opposite parties issued bill on calling upon the complainant to remit Rs1059/- with the opposite party. The said bill is unreasonably exorbitant as well. Feeling aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2 On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that on the premises of the complainant being inspected on 27th January 2010, it is detected that the complainant was using the energy for commercial purpose in his three shop rooms from the connection bearing consumer No.329, which was actually meant for domestic purpose. Resultantly, the tariff was changed to commercial one, and the electro mechanical meter was replaced by a digital one. The bill dated 11th May, 2008 for an amount of Rs.2,141/- was issued for the energy consumed for commercial purpose, the opposite parties contend. According to the opposite party, the connected load registered by the complainant with the opposite party is 2055watts. Notwithstanding this, on 30th September 2010, it was found out that the complainant was using a connected load up to 6990 watts. The complainant has used 373 units energy thereafter, and hence the bill dated 12th September 2010 for an amount of Rs.1059/- was issued to the complainant. There is no deficiency on the part of the service of the opposite parties. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties vehemently contend.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exts. Al to A11 were marked. On the side of the opposite party, save filing version and Ext.B1 was marked.
a) Whether the bill issued by the opposite party is legal?
b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant case is that the complainant was unfailingly paying out the energy charges with the opposite party. Till January 2010, the energy charges were Rs.500/-. In the meanwhile the old meter was replaced with anew. Subsequently, the energy charges went past Rs.2000/-. The opposite party contends that on 27th January 2010, on inspection it is disclosed that the complainant was using the energy for commercial purpose whilst the same was provided for domestic tariff. Hence the bill dated 18th May 2008 for an amount ofRs.2141/- was issued to the complainant. That apart the connected load sanctioned to the complainant was 2055watts. Strangely yet, the complainant was unauthorizedly using a connected load up to 6990 watts. Keeping these contentions lively in mind, we meticulously analyzed the materials available on record. It appears that the opposite party fairly marshaled some reasons for issuing the allege bills. Surprisingly, save making such statements, the opposite party does not succeed in bringing home the said contentions set out otherwise forcefully. Moreover, on a close scrutiny of the relevant materials it is unfolded that the material bills issued by the opposite party indistinct and ineloquent. Obviously, the opposite party was reluctant to reveal as to the manner in which the said bill amount was worked out. In this back drop, we are of the firm view that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. No doubt, the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In view of the facts and findings in the instant case, we hold that the Ext. A8 bill dated 11th May, 2008 for an amount of Rs.2,141/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred and forty one) and the Ext.A10 bill dated 12th September, 2010 for an amount of Rs.1059/- (Rupees one thousand and fifty nine only) issued to the complainant by the opposite parties stand cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh transparent detailed bills as per law.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation or cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2011.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan:
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.A1 - KSEB Bill for Rs.270/-
Ext.A2 - “ Bill for Rs.275/-
Ext.A3 - “ Bill for Rs.203/-
Ext.A4 - “ Bill for Rs.336/-
Ext.A5 - “ Bill for Rs.467/-
Ext.A6 - “ Bill for Rs.759/-
Ext.A7 - “ Bill for Rs.1240/-
Ext.A8 - “ Bill for Rs.2141/-
Ext.A9 - “ Receipt
Ext.A10 - “ Bill for Rs.1059/-
Ext.A11 - Photo copy of the letter dated 6.7.2010
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Mahazor
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by :-pr/-
Compared by:-
