BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.48/2009

Between

Complainant : Joseph S/o Thomas,

Kadalikkattil House,

Kulamavu P.O.

` Idukki District.

(By Adv: P.M Johny)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Sub Division, Thodupuzha.

3. The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, Moolamattom.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESDIENT)

Complainant is a consumer of opposite party as consumer No.38 KLMN Kulamavu from 1978 onwards for conducting a rice mill. During May 2006 the complainant was admitted in Hospital. He was not able to remit the electricity bill in time. So the opposite party disconnected his electrical connection on the very next day. The complainant remitted the bill amount on 29/05/2006 and applied for reconnection. But the opposite party never reconnected the same without any reason. Several applications were given to opposite party for reconnection, but there was no response. On 25/11/2008 a Revenue Recovery Notice was issued to the complainant for Rs.10,915/- for the arrears from 05/06 to 07/07. The complainant never used electricity after 07/05/2006 because the place was acquired for Vadakkekkara project. An installment facility was given as per the order of Honourable Minister and so the complainant remitted Rs.1,800/- as per the scheme. But the complainant is not entitled to pay the bill issued by the opposite party and hence the petition is filed.

2. As per written version of opposite party, there was a due of Rs.534/- to the electricity bill of the complainant even after the remittance on 29/05/2006. So the reconnection was not given to the complainant. From 05/06 on wards the opposite party is demanding only the fixed charge and meter rent from the consumer. No amount was charged towards current charge. As the petitioner did not remit any amount, due to KSEB and did not allow the KSEB authorities to take back the energy meter which was locked up in the premises, a total amount of Rs.10,915/- including the cost of energy meter was demanded from the petitioner through Revenue Recovery and an amount of Rs.6,00/- was remitted as 1st installment by the petitioner. So the balance amount is again due to the board. So the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT:- The electrical connection of the complainant’s rice mill was disconnected by the opposite party because of the non-payment of electricity bill in May 2006. After payment of the bill with fine, the opposite party delebrately avoided the application for reconnection. Complainant deposed as PW1. As per PW1, the only income for his family was from the rice mill, PW1 was admitted in Hospital for treatment and so Ext.P1 bill for Rs.454/- was not paid in due date. But the same was paid with fine on 29/05/2006, but the reconnection was not given. Ext.P2 and P3 are the receipt for the same. Application for reconnection was given to 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party several times, Ext.P5 is the copy of the same. The opposite party threatened PW1 that the connection to the residence will also be disconnected when he approached opposite party for reconnection. Revenue Recovery was initiated against the complainant for Rs.10,915/-, and the complainant got installment scheme as per the order of the Honourable Minister, which is Ext.P6. Ext.P7 is the recommendation letter from the MLA and Ext.P8 is the letter from the Honourable Minister for the receipt of the complaint given by the petitioner. The 3^rd opposite party deposed as DW1. As per DW1 there was a due of Rs.534/- against the complainant after the payment of bill on 29/05/2006. Ext.R2 is the copy of the ledger showing the same. The meter is not dismantled. The Revenue Recovery is for fixed charge and meter charge. Ext.R4 is the letter from opposite party showing the meter was not dismantled till 20/07/2007. The property was taken possession by the government for Vadakkekkara project. Ext.R1 is the letter given by the complainant for shifting the electrical connection to another premises, because the property was acquired by the government for Vadakkekkara project.

Considering the evidence, it is admitted by the opposite party that the electric connection of the complainant’s rice mill was disconnected in the month of May 2006. Even though the complainant paid the bill, it was not reconnected because there was an arrear of Rs.534/-. As per the complainant no such demand notice for arrears was given to the complainant by the opposite party so far. Revenue Recovery was initiated for Rs.10,915/- because of the non-payment of the fixed charges and meter charges after disconnection, because the meter was not dismantled. But as per the complaint the amount is not entitled to pay, because, he has not used the electricity after disconnection. Hence the only dispute is that whether the complaint is entitled to pay the fixed charges and meter charges after disconnection. It is admitted by the opposite party that the property of the complainant in which the rice mill was functioning was taken possession by the government for Vadakkekkara project. But the opposite party cannot shift the electric connection as per the norms of KSEB to another premises, but they can only give fresh connection as per application. Ext.R1 is the application given by the complainant to opposite party for shifting his electric connection because of the threat of acquisition. As per the opposite party the complainant is not having any right in the property because the government has took possession of the property. So after taking possession by the government, the opposite party never dismantled the meter and the fixed charges and meter charges are demanding from the complainant by Revenue Recovery proceedings. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. So, the opposite parties must exempt the complainant from realising any amount from the complainant after the date of taking possessing of the property for Vadakkekkara project. The 68 years old man who’s only lively hood was the income from the rice mill. The connection was disconnected only because of the non-payment of one bill when he was admitted in hospital. The same was remitted by PW1 within time, even though the reconnection was not given. So the oldman suffered a lot because of the Revenue Recovery proceedings, even approached Honourable Minister for getting installments. Rs.3,000/- can be awarded for the mental agony and suffering caused because of the same. So the complainant should be exempted from further payment of the bill.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to excempt the complainant from further payment of the electricity bill in Consumer No.38 KLMN for his rice mill. The opposite parties can issue fresh demand notice to the complainant after calculating the amount, up to the period of taking possession of the complainant’s property for Vadakkekkara Project without surcharge and fine. The amount paid by the complainant should be considered in payment of the fresh demand notice. New electric connection should be given to the complainant if the complainant applies to opposite party and complies all the formalities, within 15 days of the receipt of such application. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within 1 month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of July, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Thomas Joseph

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - N.B.Vijayan

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - KSEB bill dated 20/05/2006 for Rs.454/-

Ext.P2 - Receipt for Rs.454/- dated 20/05/2006.

Ext.P3 - Receipt for Fine of Rs.30/-

Ext.P4 - Copy of complaint dated 04/06/2006.

Ext.P5 - Copy of complaint dated 13/12/2007

Ext.P6 - Revenue Recovery Notice dated 31/12/2008.

Ext.P7 - Letter dated 13/12/2008

Ext.P8 - Letter from Minister dated 15/10/2008.

Ext.P9 series (a-c) - KSEB bills dated 22/06/2006, 19/07/2006 and 19/08/2006.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Copy of letter given by the complainant dated 28/10/2005.

Ext.R2 - Copy of Ledger

Ext.R3 - Consumption Register copy

Ext.R4 - KSEB Notice dated 20/07/2007.