BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No. 221/2004 Filed on 24/05/2004

Dated: 15..12..2010

Complainant:

K. DAS, S/o Kochan Nadar, Konathuvila Veedu, Erichalloor, Plamuttukada – P.O., Karode.

(By Adv. Pallichal S.K. Pramod)

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep.by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Parassala.

3. Sub Engineer, KSEB Office, Uchakkada, Kulathoor, Neyyattinkara.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2010, the Forum on 15..12..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is running a Flour Mill at Erichalloor, that for the purpose of this he has availed the service of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 2525, that connection was grouped under LT IV Tariff, that the complainant is regular and prompt in paying the charges as per the spot bill issued monthly, that on 18/5/2004 the employees of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant Flour Mill and issued two invoices bearing Nos.45819 & 45897 the former is for Rs. 1,332/- and the latter is for Rs. 7,403/-, that the invoice No.45897 for Rs. 7,403/- does not contain any details of the audit objection and the same is issued without any basis, though complainant was ready to remit the bill amount for Rs. 1,332/- opposite parties were reluctant to accept the same on the ground that the bill for Rs. 7,403/- may also be remitted. Opposite parties have no right to issue such an irregular and unwarranted bill, that the act of the opposite parties tantamount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to set aside the invoice bearing No. 45897 dated 18/5/2004 for Rs. 7,403/- issued by the opposite parties and pay compenation of Rs. 10,000/- along with cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that complainant is not a consumer, that the connection was given under LT IV Tariff, that the complainant was issued 2 invoices as alleged in the complaint, that the invoice for Rs. 1,332/- was issued to the complainant, being the charges of current consumed during 4/2004, that the invoice No. 45897 was issued on the basis of report from the Audit Wing of the 1^st opposite party, that it was reported that the average consumption upto 8/2002 is low, that the meter was changed on 13/8/2002 and the average consumption after the replacement of the meter was 390 units, that the old meter installed in the premises was very slow and sluggish. Hence consumption was not recorded properly, that the disputed bill was issued on the basis of the average consumption recorded in the replaced meter. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties, that the bill issued to the complainant is legal one. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the invoice No.45897 dated 18/5/2004 for Rs. 7,403/- cancelled?

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

3. Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has not marked any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties under LT IV Tariff. According to complaint, complainant has availed the service for his livelihood and the same is not an industry as such the service which is rendered for the purpose of livelihood will not come under the definition of industry. Opposite parties admitted that complainant was issued 2 invoices of which there is no dispute regarding the invoice No. 45819 dated 18/05/2004 for Rs. 1,332/-. The stand taken by the opposite party is that invoice dated 18/5/2004 for Rs. 1,332/- was issued to the complainant, being the charges of the current consumed during 4/2004 while the other invoice No. 45897 was issued on the basis of report of the Audit Wing of the 1^st opposite party. It is further contended by opposite parties that the average consumption upto 8/2002 was low and hence the meter was changed on 13/8/2002 and the average consumption after replacement of meter was 390 units. The old meter installed in the premises was very slow and sluggish and hence consumption was not recorded properly and the said meter was faulty and it was changed on 13/8/2002. Complainant has produced 5 documents. Ext. P1 is the invoice No. 45897 dated 18/5/2004 for Rs. 7,403/-. No other details are seen given in Ext. P1. Ext. P2 is the copy of the invoice No. 45819 for Rs. 1,332/-. Exts. P3, P4 & P5 are receipts dated 17/4/2004, 16/3/2004 & 16/2/2004. Audit objection is mentioned. Opposite parties have not produced any documents to show that the former meter was very slow and sluggish. According to complaint the meter was not changed on 13/8/2002, even if it is admitted for argument sake that the meter was changed on that date there is no explanation for the inordinate delay of two years in issuing such an invoice in dispute. There is no material before us to show that the meter was replaced on 13/8/2002 nor opposite parties furnished a scrap of paper regarding the alleged Audit report. It is pertinent to point out that as monthly spot billing was going on there cannot be any doubt in the functioning of the meter. Even if the meter was slow or sluggish, the meter reader should satisfy the same in the bill. Opposite parties have not produced anything to show that the reader has reported that the alleged meter was slow or sluggish. Opposite party has not mentioned in the version that they have declared the meter as faulty and they have intimated the same to the consumer. The onus is on the part of the opposite party to establish that the invoice in dispute was issued to the consumer as per Audit report. Further the onus is on the part of opposite party to establish that the meter was changed on 13/8/2002. Opposite party has no case that the complainant has committed default in payment of electricity charges. Opposite party has not furnished any document to substantiate their contention. The allegation raised by opposite parties remains disproved. Further the alleged bill is seen issued after a lapse of two years and bill itself is without explanation. Normally when spot billing is in existence, defects if any is found in due course the same will be informed the consumer immediately after the finding of the defects and bills if any prepared will be delivered to the consumer immediately thereafter. No such things happened in this case. Opposite parties have not established their contention for issuing invoice No. 45897. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the view that complainant is entitled to get the invoice No. 45897 cancelled. Deficiency in service proved.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Invoice No. 45897 dated 18/5/2004 issued by opposite parties is cancelled. In facts and circumstances of the case there will be no compensation. Parties are directed to 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 15^th day of December, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.221/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Invoice No. 45897 dated 18/5/2004

P2 : Copy of Invoice No.45819 dated 18/5/2004

P3 : Receipt No.52920 dated 17/4/2004

P4 : Receipt No. 10919 dated 16/3/2004

P5 : Receipt No. 11457 dated 16/2/2004

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT