IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 31/2009 (Filed on 03.03.2009) Between: G. Gopalan Nair, aged 76, Edanad House, Imali East Muri, Omalloor Village, Pathanamthitta District. (By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) .... Complainant. And: 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Adoor. 3. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Adoor. 4. The Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kaipattoor, Pathanamthitta. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties and is using two electric connections. Consumer No.4610000523 is in the name of his mother who died in the year 1989 and subsequent to the death of his mother, he is using the said connection. Consumer No.4610018052 is in the name of the complainant. The complainant has been paying the electricity bills regularly and he is not a defaulter. While so, the opposite parties issued a bill dated 11.07.2007 for ` 325 to consumer No.4610000523. The said bill is not correct and proper and had certain corrections and over writings in it. Thereafter also, the opposite parties issued excess bimonthly bills upto 14.01.2009. In addition to the above bills, the opposite parties issued another 11 bimonthly bills to the complainant for the connection in his name from 14.05.2007 to 14.01.2009. According to the complainant, all the bills issued by the opposite parties were not based on the actual consumption. They have issued the bills on the presumption that the complainant’s electric meters were defective. But actually, the complainant’s electric meters are properly working. The said excess bills were issued by the opposite parties as a vengeance for the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties before the higher officials of the opposite parties against inordinate delay in giving electric connection to his newly constructed building. The complainant submitted complaints before the opposite parties against the excess billing. But they have not considered the complainant’s complaint and told that the complainant’s meter is not defective. 3. Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition before the District Legal Services Authority as PLP No.798/2008 against the second and third opposite parties. In the PLP proceedings, they appeared and made an undertaking that they will examine the meters of the complainant. On the basis of the undertaking, opposite parties examined the complainant’s meters and again told that the meters are not faulty, and the complaint against the excess billing is not resolved. While the PLP is pending, certain officers came and attempted to remove the meters on 29.11.2008 for destroying the evidence of the complainant’s allegation. But they failed in that attempt due to the proper intention of the complainant. Thereafter opposite parties 2 to 4 filed a false criminal complaint against the complainant before Pathanamthitta Police who registered Crime No.979/2008 and arrested the complainant and produced before the Magistrate Court who released the complainant on bail. Moreover, opposite parties disconnected the electric supply to consumer No. 18052 and taken away the meter and thereby electric supply to that connection was denied from 29.11.2008 to 12.01.2009. Thereafter the opposite parties restored the connection on 12.01.2009 as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.308/2009 filed by the complainant. The above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence this complaint for setting aside all the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties along with compensation of ` 20,000 for the personal loss and compensation of ` 20,000 for the mental agony and the loss caused due to the non-availability of electric supply. 4. The opposite parties filed their version with the following main contentions: The complainant’s main allegation is that the electric meter installed in the complainant’s premises is properly working whereas the opposite parties have issued bills calculating the average consumption under the presumption that the meter is working properly. The said issue can only be settled by testing the meter. But the said meter was stolen by the complainant and kept in his custody. In this connection, a criminal is pending against the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta under Sec.136 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 and U/s. 353 of IPC. The disputed matter was also brought by the complainant before the District Legal Services Authority vide PLP No.798/2008 and before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide WP(C) No.308/2009. In both the proceedings, the complainant’s claim was not allowed by the concerned authorities. Consumer No.4610000523 is not in the name of the complainant and hence he is not entitled to file any complaint in respect of the said connection. In the above said circumstances, this complaint is not maintainable or allowable. 5. Apart from the above contentions, the following contentions were also raised by the opposite parties in their version. 6. In consumer No.523, opposite parties have issued 11 bimonthly bills from 14.05.2007 to 14.01.2009. During 14.09.2007 and 13.11.2007 while taking the meter reading, opposite parties found great variation in the consumption when compared to the previous consumption, they had issued the bills for the month of 9/07 and 11/07 on the basis of average consumption, under the presumption that the meter is not properly working. Except these 2 bills, all other bills were issued on the basis of the actual consumption. Since this connection is in the name of one Parvathi Amma, the complainant is not entitled to raise any dispute regarding the bills issued in the name of the said Parvathi Amma. 7. Consumer No. 18052 is in the name of the complainant and the said connection was given on 11.06.2007. The first reading was taken on 11.07.2007 and based on the said reading, a minimum bill for ` 75 was issued to the complainant. During the next bimonthly reading, the consumption was only 21 units, when compared with the connected load in the said connection i.e. 4210 Watts, the reading is very low. So on the observation of the opposite parties that the meter is not properly working they have issued bimonthly bills on the basis of average consumption of 75 units per month. Thereafter also they have issued bimonthly bills on the basis of average consumption. During this period, the opposite parties tried for installing a new meter. But the complainant strongly objected the removal of the faulty meter and the installation of a new meter. 8. While so, the complainant filed a petition before the Executive Engineer, K.S.E. Board, Adoor raising certain objections and allegations about the meter reading. On the basis of the complaint, the third opposite party inspected the site on 27.05.2008. During the inspection, the third opposite party found certain violations of Electricity Safety Rules occurred due to the construction of the complainant’s new building and hence the third opposite party directed the complainant to remit the required fees for installing a new electric post and removing the existing service wire for avoiding the dangerous conditions. The complainant agreed with the directions of the third opposite party for remitting the required fees. The third opposite party also agreed that the parallel meter will be installed for ascertaining the accuracy of the existing meter. But the complainant had not remitted the required fees as agreed. So the installation of the parallel meter was also not carried out. Instead, the complainant filed a petition before the Legal Services Authority, Pathanamthitta against the second and 4th opposite parties in this connection. As per the direction of the Legal Services Authority, the 4th opposite party inspected the meter and convinced the complainant about the complaints of the meter and also assured that the meter will be replaced. On the basis of the assurance, the proceedings before the Legal Services Authority vide PLP No.798/08 was disposed by the Legal Services Authority. 9. On the basis of the decision of the Legal Services Authority, opposite parties reached the complainant’s premises on 29.11.2008 after giving due notice to the complainant for removing the faulty meter and they have removed the meter. But the complainant objected the attempt of the opposite parties for installing a new meter by taking away the old meter from the possession of the opposite parties. So electric supply was not re-connected on 29.11.2008, the day on which the said incident occurred. Therefore, the Sub Engineer C.G. Janardanan prepared a mahazar and filed a complaint before the Pathanamthitta Police on 30.11.2008 against the complainant U/s. 136 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 r/w Sec.353 of IPC and the police registered a crime and the said crime was charge sheeted and it is pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. Subsequent to the said incidents, the power supply to the complainant’s premises was disconnected by the opposite parties and against disconnection, the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala vide WP(C) 308/09 for restoring the power supply. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala after hearing the parties directed the complainant to remit the cost of the meter before the opposite parties and the opposite parties are directed to restore the electric connection within 48 hours after the remittance of the meter cost. On 12.01.2009, the complainant remitted ` 350 before the opposite parties as the cost of the meter as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the opposite parties restored the electric connection within 2 hours from the deposit. All other allegations of the complainant that goes against the above said version is false and hence denied by the opposite parties. All disputes are occurred due to the illegal acts of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint, as the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be decided is to whether this complaint can be allowed or not? 11. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 based on his proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 and the oral deposition of DW1 based on his proof affidavit and Exts.B1 to B3. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 12. The Point: The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties is that, though the electric meters in Consumer Nos. 523 and 18052 are properly working, the opposite parties had issued electricity bills without considering the actual reading shown in the meter and they have disconnected the power supply to the complainant’s premises. 13. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit narrating his case along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Exts.A1 to A1(i) are the bimonthly electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to consumer No.18052 from 11.07.2007 to 21.01.2009. Exts.A2 to A2(j) are the bimonthly electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to consumer No.523 from 14.05.2007 to 14.01.2009. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.308 of 2009. 14. On the other hand, the opposite parties admitted the issuance of Exts.A1 and A2 series electricity bills. Out of the said bills, some of the bills are issued on the basis of the average consumption on the presumption that the electric meters are not properly working. They have arrived on that presumption, on the basis of the consumption recorded in the meters, are not comparable with the previous consumption and the connected load. The complainant raised certain objections regarding the issuance of the said bills by filing complaints before the Executive Engineer, KSE. Board and before the Legal Services Authority. Based on the said complaints and as per the directions of the Executive Engineer, KSE. Board and as per the orders of the Legal Services Authority, opposite parties conducted inspection at the complainant’s premises to find out the accuracy of the electric meters. But during that inspection, the complainant obstructed the official duties of the opposite parties, which resulted in registering a criminal case against the complainant and the disconnection of the electric supply. Later, the electric supply was restored, as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court and on remitting the cost of the meter by the complainant. However, due to the non-production of the meter by the complainant, the accuracy of the meter was not tested. Since the dispute is with regard to the accuracy of the meter, the accuracy of the meter has to be tested. But it was not tested due to the above said incidents. So the opposite parties argued that they have not committed any deficiency in service. 15. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the third opposite party filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, third opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B1 is the scene mahazar dated 27.05.2008 prepared by the opposite parties in connection with the inspection of the complainant’s premises. Ext.B2 is the proceedings in PLP No.798/08 of the Pathanamthitta District Legal Services Authority. Ext.B3 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.979/08 of Pathanamthitta Police registered against the complainant under Sec.353 IPC and Sec.136 and 18 of Indian Electricity Act 2003. 16. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. On a perusal of the materials on record it is seen that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the accuracy of the electric meters installed in the premises of the complainant. However, from the facts and circumstances, it is also seen that the accuracy of the electric meters are not tested so far. In the nature and circumstances of the dispute between the parties, the accuracy of the meter has to be tested. But it was not so done and no steps have also not taken for testing the accuracy of the electric meters by the complainant. Ext.A3, Ext.B1 to B3 clearly shows that the complainant had not allowed the opposite parties to test the accuracy of the meters installed in the complainant’s premises. In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency of service against the opposite parties in this dispute. Moreover, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to enlighten this forum to pass an order in favour of the complainant with respect to the other prayers in the complaint. Hence, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of October, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : G. Gopalan Nair. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant.: A1 to A1(i) :Bimonthly electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to consumer No.18052 from 11.07.2007 to 21.01.2009 (10 in number). A2 to A2(j) :Bimonthly electricity bills issued by the opposite parties to consumer No.523 from 14.05.2007 to 14.01.2009 (11 in number). A3 : Photocopy of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.308 of 2009. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Bijuraj. R. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Scene mahazar dated 27.05.2008 prepared by the opposite parties in connection with the inspection of the complainant’s premises. B2 : Proceedings in PLP No.798/08 of the Pathanamthitta District Legal Services Authority. B3 : Copy of the FIR in Crime No.979/08 dated 1.12.2008 of Pathanamthitta Police registered against the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) G. Gopalan Nair, Edanad House, Imali East Muri, Omalloor Village, Pathanamthitta District. (2) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Adoor. (4) The Asst. Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Adoor. (5) The Asst. Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kaipattoor, Pathanamthitta. (6) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
