BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> OP No. 169/2003 Filed on 25.04.03<br /> Dated: 18..3..2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> BABU, Bijil Bhavan, Vazhvelikonam, Kottukunnam – P.O.,<br /> Vamanapuram.<br /> Opposite parties:<br /> 1.Secretary, K.S.E.B., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> 2.Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B Sub-Division Office, Kilimanoor.<br /> 3.Sub Engineer, K.S.E.B., Vamanapuram.<br /> (O.Ps 1 to 3 by Advocate Shri.G.Gopidas)<br /> <br /> 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 23..01..2004, 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 29..02..2008, the Forum on 18..03..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT :<br /> This complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to restore electricity connection and for other reliefs. It is stated in the complaint as follows:<br /> Complainant was a holder of electricity connection of opposite parties. He had been remitting the electricity bills without default. On 02..04..2003 the complainant remitted electricity bill of Rs.119/-. On 23..04..2003 opposite parties disconnected electricity connection and sealed the meter, when complainant went to medical college hospital. Complainant is a heart patient and unable to do any work. Six months ago a crack was developed in his house wall and meter was damaged in lightning. Meter damage was brought to the notice of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties, who agreed to cure the defects of the meter. Defect was not cured rather opposite parties disconnected electricity connection. Disconnection was brought to the notice of opposite parties. No action was taken by the opposite parties and directed complainant to pay Rs. 2,500/- for restoration of connection. Complainant's family suffered much due to the action of opposite parties. Hence this complaint is filed for restoration of electricity connection and for other reliefs.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed version contending as follows: Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is true that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. It is true that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected on 23..04..2003 by opposite parties. The energy meter glass of the complainant was seen taken on inspection made by opposite parties. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties on 10..04..2003 to remit the cost of damages within seven days, otherwise the service connection will be disconnected without further notice. The complainant accepted the notice and did not remit the amount. The complainant never made any complaint before the 2nd & 3rd opposite parties about faulty meter before issuing the above said notice to the complainant by the opposite parties. The opposite parties never made any undertaking to the complainant that the faulty meter would be replaced by a new one without cost. The complainant has given a complaint before the 3rd opposite party only after disconnection of electrical supply. Then opposite parties informed the complainant to remit the cost of damages amounting to Rs. 1,525/- for reconnection of supply. But the complainant did not remit the amount. It is further submitted that the opposite parties have every right to collect the cost at damages caused to the apparatus/instrument or any other property of the opposite parties in the premises of a consumer. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost to opposite parties.<br /> 3.The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and Costs?<br /> 4. On the part of complainant PW1 is examined. Exts. P1 & P2 are marked.<br /> 5. On the part of opposite parties, none is examined and no exhibits were marked.<br /> 6.Points (i) & (ii): The complainant was a consumer of opposite parties. There was no default by him in paying electricity bill issued by opposite parties. On 02..04..2003 the complainant remitted electricity bill of Rs. 119/-. On 23..04..2003 the opposite parties disconnected electricity connection and sealed the meter when the complainant went to Medical College Hospital for his cardiac treatment. On 09..05..2003, this Forum directed the opposite parties to restore electricity connection forthwith and connection was restored accordingly. Complainant admitted the restoration of electricity reconnection in his deposition before this Forum on 21..01..2004. Complainant deposed that the minimum charges fixed was Rs. 85/-. Thereafter the meter was damaged in lightning and the same was informed the opposite parties. Opposite parties never cared to cure the defects caused by lightning. It is only after the interim order issued by this Forum, the oposite parties took step to restore the electricity connection. Connection restored. PW1 is not cross examined by the opposite parties. Opposite parties having failed to cross examine PW1 despite having been given number of adjournments for that purpose, evidence of PW1 remains unchallenged. Exts P1 & P2 are marked. Ext P1 is a bill of Rs.119/- issued by opposite parties. Ext. P2 is a copy of complaint lodged to 2nd opposite party by the complainant for restoration of electricity connection. There is no allegation on the part of opposite parties that complainant is a defaulter of electricity bill. The deposition of PW1 that the meter damaged in lightning still remains unchallenged. Even in version, the opposite parties never raised any contention that the meter was damaged due to fault of complainant. There is no suspicion of energy theft also. It is a fact that meter damaged. The contention of the complainant that the meter damage was due to lightning. No contrary was raised by the opposite parties. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to defeat the claim of the complainant. Hence demand of Rs. 2,500/- raised by the opposite parties without following prescribed procedure for restoration of electricity connection is illegal. Deficiency in service proved. Complainant admitted that electricity connection restored as per interim order issued by this Forum. The interim order issued by this Forum on 09..05..2003 needs to be made absolute. And the restoration of connection, must be free of costs.<br /> <br /> In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to restore electricity connection with new meter, free of cost. There is no order as to compensation and costs.<br /> 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. <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the day of 18th February, 2008. <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT. <br /> BEENA KUMARI.A : MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 169/03<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I.Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : Babu<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> 1.Ext.P1 : Demand and disconnection notice issued on 02.04.03 to the Consumer No.468 of bill No. K 0033.<br /> <br /> 2.Ext.P2 : Letter dated 24.04.03 from the complainant to the Asst.Engr.,KSEB Sub-division Office,Kilimanoor.<br /> III.Respondents' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Respondents' documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />