0BEFORE 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. 250/2004 Filed on 15/06/2004 Dated: 15..11..2010 Complainant: G. Asokan, S/o Gangadharan, Mankala Kizhakkaruku Puthen Veedu, Venpakal Desom, Athiyannoor Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk. (By Adv. J.R. Sanudas)
Opposite parties: The Kerala State Electricity Board – represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B, Kanjiramkulam – P.O.
(By Adv.B. Sakthidharan Nair) This O.P having been heard on 31..08..2010, the Forum on 15..11..2010 delivered the following: ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was having an Oil Mill at Nellimoodu with electric connection with consumer No. as KJM/6773 for his livelihood, that complainant was remitting the current charges promptly upto June 2001, that on 24/7/2001 complainant was served with an Invoice dated 18/7/2001 for Rs. 7,471/-, that the said bill was not having any details, that on enquiry with the Office of the 2nd opposite party he was threatened with disconnection, which led him to file a Civil Suit against opposite parties as O.S 542/2001 before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, that the said Suit was disposed of on 9/9/2002 to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector, that while the Suit was pending, 2nd opposite party had issued a letter dated 27/9/2001 revising the above said disputed bill to Rs.3,078/-, that complainant had stopped the running of the Oil Mill from the month of June 2001, but due to the pendency of the Suit, the closure was not intimated to the 2nd opposite party, that immediately after the disposal of the Suit, complainant made oral request to the 2nd opposite party to do the needful to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector and also requested to terminate the said electric connection, that opposite parties did not take any steps, that on 19/11/2002 and 30/1/2003 complainant submitted written request to 2nd opposite party and caused to send an Advocate notice on 16/10/2003, that 2nd opposite party sent reply with false allegations, that thereafter complainant was asked to remit Rs.25,000/- as an one day settlement, complainant was not ready for that, that complainant was served with Revenue Recovery Action initiating final notice dated 26/4/2004 directing to pay an amount of Rs. 42,203/- on or before 6/5/2004, that there is gross wilfull negligence, dereliction of duty, arbitrariness and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to refer the dispute regarding the bill dated 18/7/2001 to the Electrical Inspector, and to declare that complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 42,203/-, to declare that the electric connection as dismantled from September 2002 and to pay compensation along with cost. 2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, that complainant was served with an Invoice for Rs. 7,041/-, that the energy meter installed in the premises of the complainant got burned and a new meter was installed on 14/7/1999, that while preparing the monthly bill for July, 1999 only the actual consumption recorded from 14/7/1999 to 31/7/1999 was taken into account and omitted to consider the consumption from 1/7/1999 to 14/7/1999, that the actual connected load in the complainant was 15.24kw, but complainant was charged only for 15kw, that in the Audit Report short assessment was pointed out and directed to reassess the complainant, there was some error in the invoice dated 18/7/2001 and the error was rectified on receiving the complaint from the complainant and bill was revised for Rs.3,078/- instead of paying the revised bill amount complainant approached the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara as O.S 542/2001 which was disposed of with direction to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, that complainant without referring the matter to the Electrical Inspector continued to consume electricity and without paying charges from 7/2001. The averments of the complainant that he stopped running of the Oil Mill during the month of June 2001 is not true, that in the Advocate notice dated 16/10/2003 it is stated that complainant stopped running of the Oil Mill from June 2002 onwards, that the matter of closure of Oil Mill was not informed to the opposite parties, nor had complainant sent any written request to terminate the electric connection, though several notices were sent to the complainant for remitting the arrears amount, but he did not respond, that since a huge amount is pending, initiating Revenue Recovery Action is the only way to realize from the complainant. Opposite party is entitled to realize Rs. 42,203/- from the complainant they are liable to pay the amount. There is no wilfull negligence or deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: (i)Whether complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.42,203/- as per the statement of account?
(ii)Whether complainant is entitled to get an order declaring electric connection to the complainant as dismantled from September 2002?
(iii)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(iv)Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost? In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P14. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D10. 4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties and connection was under non-domestic category. There is no point in dispute that complainant had remitted current charge upto June 2001. There is no point in dispute that opposite party had issued a notice dated 18/7/2001 for Rs. 7,471/- and the same was revised subsequently to Rs.3,078/-. There is no point in dispute that complainant has preferred OS 542/2001 before Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara and the same was disposed of on 9/9/2002. It has been the case of the complainant that during the pendency of OS 542/2001 opposite party has revised the disputed bill dated 18/7/2001 and issued a fresh bill for Rs.3,078/-. It has been the case of the complainant that the revised bill itself is without any basis. It has also been the case of the complainant that he had stopped the running of the Oil Mill from the month of June 2001, but due to the pendency of the Suit the closure was not intimated to the 2nd opposite party, that immediately after the disposal of the Suit complainant made oral request to the 2nd opposite party to do the needful to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector. It has been further submitted by the complainant that he was asked to remit Rs.25,000/- by opposite parties in the Adalath as One day settlement and as a part of their vengeance opposite parties have made false and fabricated allegation that complainant has taken away the electric meter and complainant was served with Revenue Recovery Action. Ext. P1 is the copy of bill dated 18/07/2001 for Rs. 7,471/-. On perusal of Ext. P1, the energy consumed is not seen in the bill. Ext. P2 is the copy of OS No. 542/2001. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter issued by Assistant Executive Engineer stating that there was an error in Ext. P1 bill, hence the same is revised to Rs. 3,078/-. Ext. P4 is the Order in OS.542/2001 dated 9/9/2002. As per the said Order the Suit was referred to Electrical Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party dated 19/11/2002 by the complainant requesting to do the neeful to refer the matter to Electrical Inspector and to terminate the said electric connection. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter dated 30/1/2003 addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer requesting him to terminate the said connection. Ext. P7 is the copy of the Advocate notice addressed to opposite parties informing them that there was no consumption of electric power since the month of June, 2002 and complainant is not liable to any charges, if any, from September 2002 (ie. after the request for disconnection). Ext. P8 is the copy of the letter from 2nd opposite party to the Advocate. Ext. P9 is the copy of Advocate notice addressed to 2nd opposite party in connection with the reply notice issued by opposite parties. Ext. P10 is the reply issued by opposite parties to Ext. P9. Ext. P11 is the copy of arrear statement. Ext. P12 is the notice issued by opposite parties to the complainant regarding Revenue Recovery Action. Ext. P13 is the Advocate notice issued by complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext. P14 is the reply to Ext. P13 issued by 2nd opposite party. Opposite party has also produced 10 documents marked as Exts. D1 to D10. Admittedly, Ext. P1 bill is revised by opposite parties thereby the bill amount of Rs. 7,471/- has been reduced to Rs.3,078/-. From the action of the opposite parties it appears that there was error in the Ext. P1 bill which was admitted by the opposite parties, though as per Ext. P4 the matter was referred to Electrical Inspector no action taken either from the complainant or from the part of opposite parties. Complainant has challenged Rs. 3,078/- as per Ext. P3. It is further to be noted that opposite party has issued a notice for Rs 42,203/- to the complainant. As per Ext. P11 arrear statement connected load is mentioned as 16kw whereas in the complaint connected load according to complainant is 15.24kw. According to complainant fractions equal to and above half will be treated as one and thus less than half will be committed, as such the connected load of the complainant comes to 15kw. As per Ext. P11 arrear statement amount is calculated on the basis of connected load as 16kw. It is to be noted that as per Ext. P5 on 19..11.2002 complainant had requested the opposite parties to terminate the connection. Opposite party has never shown the consumption of electricity by the complainant after 19/11/2002. Even after informing the opposite parties to disconnect the connection, no action is seen taken by the opposite parties towards the same. The burden is on the part of the opposite parties to show that complainant has used electricity for running Oil Mill after 19/11/2002. Both parties never attempted to refer the matter to Electrical Inspector to decide to Ext. P1 bill, even prior to the disposal of OS 542/2001 opposite parties found error in Ext. P1 bill thereby revised the same to the tune of Rs. 3,078/-. Further in the version it is contended by the opposite parties that closure of the mill was not informed to them which is contrary to Ext. P5 letter addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Opposite party has never adduced any evidence to show that complainant has used electricity for running the Oil Mill after 19/11/2002. It is further contended by opposite parties that on 14/11/2003 2nd opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and found the meter equipments installed in the premises missing. Their allegation is that complainant had dismantled the electric meter. If that be so, the opposite party would report the matter to the Police concerned. Ext. D6 is the copy of the complaint addressed to Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara Police Station by the opposite party. Ext. D4 is the copy of the Site mahazar. On perusal of Site mahazar it is seen that the inspection was done in the presence of two witnesses - G. Sudhakaran and S. Sunil Kumar. In the mahazar, it is seen stated "മേല്പ്പടി connection കൊടുത്തിരിക്കുന്ന കെട്ടിടം അപകടനിലയില് കുറേ ഭാഗം തകര്ന്നു കിടക്കുന്നതായി കണ്ടു. പരിശോധനയില് Electricity Board – ന്െറ 2 മീറ്ററുകളും കാണാനില്ല. Service connection കൊടുത്തിരുന്ന service wire meter-ല് കൊടുത്തിരുന്നത് അഴിച്ചു മാറ്റി മഞ്ഞ insulation tap ചുറ്റിയതായി കണ്ടു.......മീറ്ററുകള് കാണാനില്ലാത്തതിനാലും കെട്ടിടം ഭാഗികമായി തകര്ന്നതിനാലും അപകട സാദ്ധ്യത ഉള്ളതിനാലും wire-കള് അഴിച്ചെടുത്ത് അപകടം ഒഴിവാക്കി. Though the said Site mahazar was prepared in the presence of 2 witnesses, none of them were examined in the witness box by the opposite parties. On perusal of the Site mahazar it is seen that the said Mahazar was not prepared in the presence of the complainant. Further, though opposite party, by Ext. D6, has reported the Police no material is before us to show that Police has registered a case against the complainant. The burden is on the part of the opposite parties to show that the meter was dismantled by the complainant. It is pertinent to point out that the disputed bill was dated 18/7/2001. On 19/11/2002 by Ext. P5 complainant had requested the opposite party to terminate the connection. No action was taken by the opposite parties. So we presume that from 19/11/2002 onwards the connection to the complainant's mill stood as dismantled. Opposite party has never produced any material to show the units of consumption by the complainant for running the Oil Mill. Even in Ext.P1 itself units of consumption not mentioned. As such we are of the considered opinion that complainant is liable to pay fixed charge for 15kw upto 19/11/2002. Complainant is not liable to pay the amount of Rs.42,203/- as per the statement of account. Since Ext. P1 bill dated 18/7/2001 is seen revised by Assistant Executive Engineer and both the complainant and opposite parties never taken any steps to refer the matter to the Electrical Inspector and the meter is seen dismantled from the premises, referring the same to the Electrical Inspector after a lapse of 8 years will never serve any purpose. Revision of Ext. P1 bill by opposite parties would show deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if complainant is directed to pay fixed charge on the basis of connected load 15kw from 6/2001 to 11/2002, since the status of the meter is not known we cannot direct the complainant to pay meter cost. Since timely bill was not issued by opposite parties, opposite parties are not entitled to get interest on arrear amount.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant is not liable to pay the amount as claimed by opposite parties vide Ext. P11 arrear statement. Electric connection to consumerr No. KJM/6773 will stand dismantled from 19/11/2002. Complainant shall pay fixed charge from 6/2001 to 11/2002 on the basis of connected load 15kw to opposite parties. Opposite parties shall raise fresh bill to that effect. In facts and circumstances of the case there will be no compensation. Both 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 15th day of November, 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No: 250/2004 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness:
PW1 : G. Asokan II. Complainant's documents: P1 : The copy of bill dated 18/7/2001 for Rs. 7,471/-. P2 : " OS No.542/2001 P3 : " letter issued by Assistant Executive Engineer dated 27/9/2001 P4 : The order in OS 542/2001 dated 9/9/2002 P5 : Copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party dated 19/11/2002 by the complainant P6 : " letter dated 30/01/2003 addressed to Assistant Executive Engineer P7 : " the Advocate notice addressed to opp. Parties P8 : " the letter from 2nd opposite party to the Adovocate P9 : " Advocate notice addressed to 2nd opposite party in connection with the reply notice issued by opposite parties P10 : Reply issued by opposite parties to Ext. P9 P11 : Copy of arrrear statement P12 : Notice issued by opposite parties to the complainant regarding Revenue Recovery Action P13 : Copy of the advocate notice issued by complainant to 2nd opposite party P14 : " reply to Ext. P13.
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : R. Sadasivan IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Copy of the Order in OS 542/2001 dated 27/7/01 D2 : " " dated 9/9/02 D3 : " letter dated 23/1/2001 addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kanjiramkulam D4 : " Site Mahazar dated 14/11/2003 D5 : " connection details produced by opposite party D6 : " letter addressed to the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Neyyattinkara D7 : " calculation statement D8 : " letter dated 6/4/2004 D9 : " letter addressed to the complainant D10 : " letter dated 12/11/2003.
PRESIDENT
| | [ Smt. Beena Kumari. A] Member[ Sri G. Sivaprasad] PRESIDENT[ Smt. S.K.Sreela] Member | | 
