KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.516/05
JUDGMENT DATED 14.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Asst.Ex.Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Thazhe Chovva. -- APPELLANTS
Kannur – 670006.
2. The Secretary,
KSEB, Pattom,
Trivandrum.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
Nandini.V.
PeediaKandy House, -- RESPONDENT
Karuva P.O, Kadalayi,
Kannur.
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.254/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext.A4 adjustment invoice bill dated 22.5.2000 for Rs.6655/-. Invoice amount was subsequently revised/reduced to Rs. 4569/-. Therefore, the complainant prayed for setting aside the above said adjustment invoice Bill dated 22.5.2000 and to refund the amount of Rs.4569 paid by the complainant. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the disputed adjustment invoice was issued based on the actual consumption of energy by the complainant and also on the strength of the meter reading taken by KSEB in May 2000. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Before the Forum below one witness was examined on the side of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on her side. From the side of the opposite parties, calculation statement was marked as B1. Based on the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint in OP.254/2000 by virtue of the impugned order dated 30th November 2004. Hence the present appeal.
3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. This Commission was pleased to hear the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on B1 calculation statement and argued for the position that the adjustment invoice dated 22.5.2000 was issued based on the consumption of energy by the complainant/consumer.
4. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of electrical energy and she was a consumer under the first opposite party/Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Thazhe Chovva, Kannur. There is also no dispute that the complainant has been remitting the energy charges during the relevant period ranging from June 1998 to May 2000. The impugned A4 adjustment invoice dated 22.5.2000 was also issued for the very same period ranging from June 1998 to May 2000. But there is no document to show that there was excess consumption of electrical energy by the complainant during the aforesaid period warranting issuance of A4 adjustment invoice. The appellants/opposite parties have not produced the relevant meter reading register or any other document to substantiate their case that there was excess consumption of energy by the complainant/consumer during the period from June 1998 to May 2000.
5. The only document is B1 calculation statement produced from the side of the opposite parties. As per B1 calculation statement, the total consumption of energy during period from May ’98 to June 2000 is shown as 4321 units and based on the aforesaid statement a total of Rs.4562/- is claimed. But there is no supporting document to substantiate the case of the opposite parties there was so much consumption of energy by the complainant/consumer. The best piece of evidence to prove the consumption of energy was the meter reading register and the person who prepared and recorded the meter reading register. No body has been examined to prove the actual consumption of energy by the complainant/consumer. So, the Forum below is perfectly justified in not relying on B1 calculation statement. If that be so, the claim made by the opposite parties based on A4 adjustment bill cannot be upheld. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below canceling A4 adjustment invoice dated 22.5.2000.
6. Admittedly, the complainant/consumer was compelled to pay the amount of RS.4569/- covered by A4 adjustment invoice. So, the Forum below is justified in directing the opposite parties to refund the aforesaid sum of Rs.4569/-.
7. The Forum below has also awarded compensation of Rs.1000/- with litigation expense of Rs.250/-. Considering the facts
and circumstance of the case, this Commission is of the view that the compensation of RS.1000/- ordered by the Forum below was unwarranted. It is to be noted that the impugned adjustment invoice was cancelled and thereby the opposite parties are directed to refund the amount covered by A4 adjustment invoice. But, the order directing payment of compensation of Rs.1000/- is liable to be quashed. The expense of Rs.250/- ordered by the Forum below is reasonable and the same is confirmed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified to the extent as indicated above.
In the result, the appeal is allowed partly. The impugned order dated 30.11.04 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.254/2000 is modified and thereby the compensation of Rs.1000/- ordered by the Forum below is quashed. But in all other respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. Appellants/opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.4569/- collected from the respondent/complainant on the strength of A4 adjustment invoice with a cost of Rs.250/-. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
s/L
