IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 31st day of August, 2010
Filed on 06.04.2005
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.47/05
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Thankamma Chacko, 1. K.S.E.B, Represented by its Secretary,
W/o Late Chacko, Thiruvananthapuram.
Koottunkal,
Kunnumkari.P.O., 2. Executive Engineer,
Veliyanadu Village. Electrical Major Section, Alappuzha. (By Adv.Hariharaputhran )
3. Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division, Moncompu.
4. Asst. Engineer,
Puncha Section, Kidangara.
(By Adv.Raveendra Das)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows: - Consequent to the death of her husband, the complainant has become the consumer of the opposite party. Her connection of the electrical energy is categorized in the domestic tariff. The said connection bears the consumer No.162MPKY. The usual bimonthly energy charge is Rs.349/- (three hundred and forty nine only). The opposite parties on examination of the meter reading in every alternative months, used to issue bills to the complainant and the complainant paid all such bills unfailingly. In the meantime the meter developed some malfunctioning and on complaint, the 4th opposite party replaced the same with another. When matters stood thus, on 31st March 2005, the 4th opposite party issued a bill bearing No.97007 for an amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only). The invoice required the complainant to pay off the said bill prior to 7th April 2005 to evade disconnection of the energy. The opposite parties took the meter reading in every two months and on the basis of the same the bills are issued, and the same are duly paid. The complainant never used the energy which incurs a charge of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only). The complainant is a widow and she is residing therein all alone. There was no opportunity for her to use such an exorbitant amount of energy which acquires a charge of Rs.45,000/-(rupees forty five thousand only). The 3rd opposite party caused the petitioner to affix her signature on some papers wherein something was written without enabling her knowing its contend or purpose. The complainant is illiterate. Neither the bill nor the content of the said paper is binding on the opposite party. Aggrieved by the exorbitant bill and the conduct of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Forum for relief in her favor.
1. Notice being sent the opposite parties turned up. The 3rd opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of the other opposite parties. The forceful contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has unauthorizedly to a shed in the complainant premise and the energy was unlawfully used for carrying out wooden works therein. The opposite party had fixed the energy consumption of the complainant to an average of 186 units and a corresponding amount of Rs.349/-(Rupees three hundred and forty nine only) was being charged. When the complainant complained of faulty meter, a parallel meter was installed, but the parallel meter also met with the same fate. On 28th March consequent to a complaint by the neighbors of the complainant, the opposite parties along with their vigilance wing conducted an inspection in the premises of the complainant, and detected that energy was being drawn by the complainant to a shed for the purpose of functioning some equipments such as drilling machine, plaining machine etc. The total unauthorized load was thus 5KW. In the same way the complainant used the energy for 180 days. For temporary extension as per concerned tariff the charge is Rs.50/- per KW. As such the bill of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only) is the penal charge levied for the unlawful extension, and the complainant is liable to pay the same.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant herself as PWl, and the documents Exbts Al to A5 were marked. Exbt Al is the copy of the bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only), A2 is the copy of the medical report, A3 is the copy of the bimonthly bill issued by the opposite party and A4 and A5 are also the copy of similar bills so issued by the opposite party to the complainant. On the side of the opposite party, the sub engineer was examined as RWl and the document Exbt B1 was marked. Exbt B1 is the mahassar report.
3. Keeping in view, the contentions of the parties, the immediate questions arise for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the bill in question is binding on the complainant?
(b) Whether the complainant illegally drew any connection to a shed standing in her premise?
4. We heard the counsels in detail. We carefully perused the manifold materials placed on record by the parties. The specific contention of the complainant is that taking into account the issue of malfunctioning of the meter; the opposite party fixed a bimonthly charge of Rs.349/-(Rupees three hundred forty nine only). The complainant paid off every such bill with out any default. Yet the opposite party, quite unexpectedly slapped on the complainant an exorbitant additional bill with out any tangible reason. The complainant is aged, ailing and even illiterate. Taking leverage of the convenient situation, the opposite party caused the complainant affix her signature on some papers wherein something was drawn up. The complainant is not at all liable to pay the amount figured in the alleged bill nor is binding by the content of the said papers, if whatsoever was drawn up therein, the complainant vehemently argued. We thoroughly went through the evidence let in by the opposite party. The version of the opposite party is that, pursuant to a complaint against the complainant, the vigilance wing of the opposite party carried out a lightning inspection on the premise of the complainant. The probing party detected that the complainant had drawn electrical energy to a proximate shed with out the required prior permission of the opposite party. The energy was being drawn for the purpose of operating the instruments viz. drilling machine, plaining machine etc. The complainant was using the load of 5 KW. As per the existing tariff of the Board, for temporary extension one KW costs Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only), and thus the complainant unauthorizedly used the same for a period of 180 days. Computing in the said manner, the bill comes up to the amount of Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only). The opposite parties emphasis.
5. We meticulously perused the searching cross examination effected on the complainant by the counsel for the opposite party. It is worth noticing that in the complaint, and also in the affidavit filed by the complainant, it is unambiguously stated by the complainant that she is illiterate. But in the cross examination, with out any hesitation the complainant as an answer to a question agreed to that 'she knows how to read and write, usually she will not be prepared to affix signature in any paper'. Thus there is incongruity between her own versions delivered on different occasions. That apart, she willfully suppressed the circumstance under which she was constrained to affix her signature on some papers or at least was reluctant to disclose the same any where in the complaint or even in the affidavit. However, she admitted to her signature in Exbt B1 mahasar, but was not prepared to subscribe to its content. It is significant to note that during cross examination she admitted that the vigilance had visited her premise, but still did not offer any convincing explanation for the non-disclosure of the same earlier and for affixing signature on a document the contends of which was not known to her. Similar attitude of witnesses is something not new to this Forum. It is also crucial to note that the answers delivered by the complainant to several pointed questions during cross examinations were either ‘I don't know or I don't remember’. Similarly the complainant was not even able to deny several other critical suggestions thrown at her by the counsel for the opposite party.
6. In this context we are of the view that the complainant's feigning illiterate is an unsuccessful strategy to escape from the liability of the content of Exbt B1. The complainant has no case that the officials are ill-disposed to her. On an anxious consideration and scrutiny of all the relevant materials in the back drop of the facts and circumstance of the instant case, we hold that the version advanced by the opposite party is worthy of acceptance.
For the reasons stated herein above, the complaint is dismissed and parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2010.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Thankamma Chacko (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The copy of the bill issued by the opposite party
Ext. A2 series - The copy of the Medical Report (2 Nos.)
Ext.A3-A5 - The copy of the bimonthly bills issued by the opposite party
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - K.V.Suresh Babu (Witness)
Ext. B1 - The Mahassar Report dated, 28/03/2005
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- k.x/-
Compared by:-
