IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of August, 2010
Filed on 22.09.09
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.306/09
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.Issac Thomas, 1. Kerala State Electricity Board,
S/o Ouseph Issac, Vaidhyuthy Bhavan, Pattom,
Thaipparambil, Thiruvananthapuram.
Edathua.P.O,
Alappuzha. 2. The Assistant Engineer,
(By Adv.P.Rajesh) Edathua Electrical Section,
Edathua.P.O, Alappuzha
(By Adv. A.Anilkumar)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case is as follows:- The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party bearing consumer No.1164. The said connection is in the domestic category. The opposite parties issue bimonthly bill to the complainant and the complainant without any default pays off the same. When matters got on thus, the opposite party issued to the complainant an additional bill of Rs.10697/-(Rupees ten thousand six hundred and ninety seven only) dated, 7th September 2009, above and beyond the regular bill of Rs.l520/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and twenty only). In the bill the said amount is stated as arrears. On enquiry by the complainant in the office of the opposite party, the complainant was impressed upon that the said amount was the arrears of payments, and if the same is defaulted the supply of the energy would be severed. The complainant never defaulted any payments. Never an occasion aroused wherin the official of the opposite party had to get back with out taking the meter reading. The opposite party did not deliver any convincing explanation to the complainant as to the period during which the payments fell in arrears or as to on what basis such huge amount was computed. For the reasons best known to them, the complainant was held on the grip of threat of disconnection. The commission and omission of the opposite party is unlawful which caused incalculable mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum praying for relief.
1. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up. They filed detailed version. The contention of the opposite party was that the connected load provided for the consumer was for 100 Watts. During the course of the bimonthly billing of the consumption of the complainant, it was noticed that the consumption of the energy by the complainant was much higher than the allowed connected load. Steps were taken to the connected load of the complainant. It was found that the existing connected load of the complainant was further more than what was allowed. On the basis of this, the bill dated 22nd July 2009 was issued to the complainant. The details as to the computation of the amount are duly stated in the bill. The complainant is liable to pay the said bill which has been issued in line with all concerned laws, the opposite party fervently contends.
2. On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Exbt A 1 to A5 wee marked. Exbt A1 is the bill to be paid off, and Exbts A2 to A5 are the paid bills and the concerned payment receipts. On the side of the opposite parties, Rtd. Sub-engineer was examined as RW1 and the documents Exbts B1 to B3 were marked. Exbt B1 is the Mahasar, B2is the copy of the bill dated, 5th May 2010, and B3 is the audit report.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions arise for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is liable to pay of the bill in question?
(2) Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
4. We heard the counsels for the parties. The specific and definite case of the complainant used to that the complainant pay off the bimonthly bill regularly. He has made no default. On the other hand the opposite party contended that the complainant unauthorizedly enhanced the connected load the result of which the bill in question was issued. We have gone through the materials put on record by both the parties. A forum called upon to consider the acceptability of the version advanced by the opposite party must consider the evidence with care and caution. If the evidence of the opposite party is subjected to close and anxious scrutiny, it appears that a mahasar was drawn up by the opposite party. Keeping in view the contention of the opposite party, and on analysis of the mahasar, the conclusion is inevitable that the connected load was improved. Thus the immediate short question arises for consideration is whether the connected load has any direct impact or interference with the tariff of billing. During the cross examination, RW1 without any hesitation admitted that, the meter reading had revealed the actual consumption, and what is more, the complainant paid off the amount in line with the said meter reading. In this context, we also take note that the opposite party has not produced even a copy of the bill dated 22nd July 2009 allegedly issued by the opposite parties. It is also significant to note that the many suggestions thrown at RW1 did not also elicit any satisfactory denial. Moreover, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, we are of the view that the opposite parties miserably failed to establish or at least to offer a convincing explanation as to whether the improvement of connected load has any direct impact or influence on the billing system. In the absence of proof as to this, we are of the considered view that the version advanced by the opposite parties does not merit any acceptance.
In view of the discussions made herein above, the opposite parties are directed to withdraw/cancel the bill dated 7th September bearing No.72508 issued to the complainant allegedly on the ground of enhancement of connected load and allow him forthwith to remit the amount 1520/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and twenty only) figured therin as the actual charge. The opposite parties are further directed to regularize charge as per the consumption by the complainant. The opposite parties shall comply with this order within 30 days of the date of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Issac Thomas (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The Electricity Bill No.72508 dated, 07/09/2009
Ext. A2 - The Electricity Bill No.60970 dated, 07/07/2009 and payment receipt
Ext. A3 - The Electricity Bill No.48713 dated, 06/05/2009 and payment receipt
Ext. A4 - The Electricity Bill No.37085 dated, 06/03/2009 and payment receipt
Ext. A5 - The Electricity Bill No.25424 dated, 06/01/2009 and payment receipt
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - C.J.Joseph (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The Mahasar dated, 03/07/2009
Ext. B2 - The copy of the Electricity Bill dated, 05/05/2010
Ext. B3 - The Audit Report
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
