IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November , 2011
Filed on 21-12-2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.368/2010
Between
Complainant :- | Opposite party:- |
Sri. K.P. Thomas S/o Philip, Karinjattil House, Lakassery, Chenganoor. (Adv. V. Mohan Das, Alappuzha) | 1.The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board 2. Executie Engineer, Electrical Division Office, Chengannoor, (By Adv.A.Anilkumar, Alappuzha) 3.Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Chenganoor. (By Adv. A.Anilkumar, Alappuzha) |
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case in succinct is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.8775. The complainant had been unfailingly paying off the energy charges of Rs.1575/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred and seventy five only ) per month under the slab system. Strangely still, the opposite parties issued an additional bill calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.24932/-(Rupees twenty four thousand nine hundred and thirty two only ). The complainant was constrained to pay the said amount consequent to the connection being cut off. The complainant filed a complaint alleging excess billing, and the opposite party slashed the slab from Rs.1575/-( Rupees one thousand five hundred and seventy five only ) to Rs.355/-(Rupees three hundred and fifty five only). Opposite parties, without any basis thereafter enhanced the slab and issued additional bills at regular intervals. Sequel to the said arbitrary acts, the opposite parties at length on 15th December 2010 issued another bill calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.64211/-(Rupees sixty four thousand two hundred and eleven only ) and an additional surcharge of Rs.182414( Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand and four hundred and forteen only ). The opposite parties issued the bill without proper examination of the meter from time to time. The opposite parties haven't deducted the amounts remitted by the complainant. The opposite parties inflicted inestimable mental agony to the complainant. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On serving notice the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the opposite parties' contention is that the complainant had already approached the Munsiff Court, Chengannur vide OS No.256/98. The learned Munsiff Court referred the matter before the Electrical Inspector, Alappuzha who acknowledged the opposite parties' calculation of the bill issued to the complainant. According to the opposite party, the material issue has already been resolved by a competent authority and the complainant is disentitled to agitate the same matter before this Forum. The business firm run by the complainant is not for his livelihood but obviously a profiteering project. The electrical inspector vide order dated 14th July 2010 had
Ordered that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.5379/-(Rupees fifty three thousand three hundred and seventy nine only ) as per the invoice dated 15th May 1998 and Rs29293/-(Rupees twenty nine thousand two hundred and ninety three only )* vide invoice dated 15th July 1998. Accordingly, the material notice was issued calling upon the complainant to remit Rs.64211/-(Rupees sixty four thousand two hundred and eleven only ) against electric charge and an additional surcharge of Rs.182414/- (Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand and four hundred and fourteen only ), the opposite parties allege. The bills were issued on deducting the energy charges paid by the complainant. There is no negligence or service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has no proper cause of action and is disentitled to any relief, the opposite parties contend.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Engineer was examined and the documents Exbts B 1 to B3 were marked.
(a) Whether the material bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 15th December is legal?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. The complainant case is that the complainant was unswervingly paying off the bills issued by the opposite parties from time to time. Strangely yet the opposite parties often issued additional bills unsupported by sufficient material particulars whichever also was remitted by the complainant on compelling circumstances. Thereafter to the complainants extreme astonishment, the opposite parties length on
15th December 2010 issued another bill calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.64211/-(Rupees sixty four thousand two hundred and eleven only ) and an additional surcharge of Rs.182414/-( Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand four hundred and fourteen only ) to the opposite party. According to the complainant, the bill in issue is absolutely baseless. To this, the opposite parties' significant contention is that the complainant had already taken up the matter to the the Munsiff Court, Chengannur vide OS No.256/98, and the matter eventually ended up in favor of the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties, now the complainant is waived from approaching this Forum as he has done now. Keeping in view the contentions of the parties, we carefully went through the materials available on record before us. It appears that the complainant has not disputed the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant approached the Munsiff Court, Chengannur vide as No.256/98. But on a closer scrutiny of the entire materials, it is unfolded that the bills the complainant challenged before the Munsiff Court, Chengannur vide OS No.256/98 were the ones dated 15th May 1998 and 15th July 1998. In this context, we are of the view that the opposite parties crucial contention will not hold water. What is challenged before this Forum in the instant case is the bill the opposite parties issued on 15th December 2010 calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.64211/-(Rupees sixty four thousand two hundred and eleven only ) and an additional surcharge of Rs.l82414/-(Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand four hundred and forteen only). It is more significant to notice that save making statements, the opposite parties haven't adopted any useful steps to prove its contentions. Thus taking the cases of the parties in its entirety, it goes so that the complainant case inspires confidence in the mind of this Forum. To put it simply, the complainant's contentions merit acceptance, and as such, the complainant is entitled to relief |
In view of the facts and findings of the discussions made herein above Exts A1 bill stands cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh transparent detailed bill 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 complainant:-
Ext. A1 -Electricity bill dated 15-12-2010
Ext. A2 - Copy of Munsif Court Order
Evidence of Opposite party :-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the Proceeding of the Electrical Inspector
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
