BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 286/2001

Dated: 30..06..2010

Complainant:

A. Shamsudeen, Nadeera Manzil, T.C.35/1568, Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram – 24.

(By Adv. K. Sreekumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Chackai, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv. Shaji Chellappan)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10..01..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 27..02..2010, the Forum on 30..06..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 5676 under Electrical Major Section, Chackai, that complainant is conducting a petty tea stall for more than 20 years, that initially the monthly slab of the shop was estimated at Rs. 179/- and consumer was allowed to use 50 units per month. From 10/96 onwards the Provisional Invoice Card raised to 100 units and the slab amount was raised to Rs. 269/-. Accordingly the complainant is remitting the slab amount without default, that the tariff of the shop is put under VII A that the meter reading is not regularly taken. Opposite party did not care to verify the accuracy of the meter, that from 7/97 to 5/2001 meter reading remain as 1222. During the said period complainant remitted amounts contrary to the slab amount fixed. Opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 7,173/- being the arrears of current charges from 11/96 to 11/98, that complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 2,504/- as per bill No.312 for a period from 11/96 to 7/97. Earlier the complainant was issued with an additional bill for Rs. 8,314/- for the period from 11/92 to 5/96 against which complainant filed O.P.No. 88/97 before this Forum and he was exonerated from the payment and opposite party was directed to adjust an amount of Rs. 1,950/- along with Rs. 300/- as cost to the complainant in the future bills. Opposite parties did not adjust the said amount as per direction of this Forum. Complainant challenged the genuiness of the bill before the 2^nd opposite party, though 2^nd opposite party assured that they will look into the matter, contrary to the said assurance, opposite parties disconnected the aforesaid connecion on 10/07/2001. Hence this complaint to cancel the additional bill issued by opposite parties and to direct opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.

2.Opposite parties filed version contending that the consumer No. 5676 is in the name of Smt. Sumathy under LT VII A tariff, that the monthly consumption for 5/93 to 5/96 comes to 3941 units, thereby the average monthly consumption comes to 110 units per month which was above to 50 units allotted to the consumer. The additional bill for Rs. 7,173/- issued is in order and not exhorbitant. As the amount was not paid by the complainant, service was disconnected. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainant is entitled to get bill dated 29/06/2001 cancelled?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P3. 2^nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not furnish any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant has filed a complaint before this Forum vide O.P.No. 88/97 which was disposed on 31^st July 1998. It is not in dispute that the tariff of the shop is put under LT VII A. The very case of the complainant is that meter reading was not taken regularly which is evident from meter reading noted in Ext. P2 series. Ext. P2 series include bill dated 14/07/98, 25/03/99, 29/01/2000, 01/02/01 & 3/2001 etc... On perusal of Ext. P2 series bills meter reading in all the bills was 1222 units. Opposite parties did not care to verify the accuracy of the meter. It has been the case of the complainant that opposite party has issued an additional bill for Rs. 7,173/- towards arrears for the period from 11/96 to 11/98. It has also been the case of the complainant that the said bill is inflated one and complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,504/- as per bill No.312 for a period from 11/96 to 7/97. Ext. P2 series include a copy of the receipt for Rs. 2,504/- issued by opposite party on 31/07/97. Ext. P3 is the copy of invoice dated 30/09/96 for Rs. 8,314/-. It has been the specific case of the complainant that he had filed an O.P.No.88/97 before this Forum and as per the Order in O.P. 88/97 dated 31^st July 1998 opposite parties are directed to adjust Rs. 1,950/- paid by the complainant in future bills and also to pay Rs. 300/- as cost to the complainant. The above said O.P was with respect to energy consumption from 11/92 to 5/96. In the said order it was confirmed that there was an excess consumption of energy of 2141 units during the period from 5/93 to 5/96. The case in dispute is with respect to arrears of current charges for the period from 11/96 to 11/98 which was not the subject matter in the earlier O.P. Opposite party has furnished a calculation statement showing the meter reading from 5/93 to 5/96, thereby the total consumption during the period came to 3941 units while the units allowed to the consumer as per Provisional Invoice Card is 1800 units. Excess consumption during the said period comes to 2141 units, energy charges comes to Rs.6,050/-, additional bill issued for the period upto 5/97 due to Introduction of Spot Billing System comes to Rs. 248/- thereby total amount payable comes to Rs. 6,050 + 248 = 6,298/-. As per the order of this Forum in O.P.No.88/97, the amount to be adjusted in future bills comes to Rs. 1,950/- + cost to Rs. 300/- ie., total to be adjusted as per order in O.P.88/97 is Rs. 2,250/-. As per interim direction on 26/07/01 complainant remitted Rs.1,000/-. Hence the total amount to be adjusted by the opposite party comes to Rs. 2,2,50/- + Rs. 1,000/- = Rs.3,250/-, balance amount due from the consumer comes to Rs. 3,048/- ie., Rs. 6,298 – Rs.,3,250/-. According to opposite parties surcharge is payable at applicable rates from due date till date of payment payable, surcharge payable upto 6/99 is Rs. 10,778/-. The statement furnished by the oppostie parties includes surcharges while the same was not mentioned in the version filed by oppostie parties. As per the calculation statement opposite party is entitled to get Rs. 3,048/- towards balance principal amount, which is not tallying with the amount claimed by opposite party as per Ext.P1 notice. Opposite party has not substantiated how they have arrived at Rs.7,173/- as per Ext. P1. The initial onus is on the opposite party to explain the reason for additional demand of Rs. 7,173/- the amount as per the calculation statement is not tallying with the amount stated in the version. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to pay balance principal amount of Rs. 3,048/-. Since the amount is claimed by opposite parties belatedly, demand for surcharge would come against the principal of natural justice.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The Ext.P1 notice issued by opposite party is hereby cancelled. Complainant is directed to remit Rs. 3,048/- to opposite parties and opposite parties are directed to accept the same towards arrear amount for the period from 5/93 to 5/96. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of June, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.286/2001

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of notice dated 29/6/2001

P2 : Series include bills

P3 : Copy of adjustment invoice dated 30/09/1996

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT.