BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 306/2002 Filed on 17.07.2002
Dated : 15.03.2011
Complainant:
S. Appukuttan, S/o Selvam, Avanthuruthu Veedu, Kakkavila P.O, Karode Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk.
(By adv. C.S. Raj Mohan)
Opposite parties :
Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Neyyattinkara.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Parassala.
(By adv. G. Gopidas)
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 15.03.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 28.01.2011, the Forum on 15.03.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer Nos. 6079 and 4701, that the former is under LT IV tariff , while the latter is under LT V tariff, that complainant availed power connection for agricultural purpose long ago, that is in 1994 and industrial connection in 2000, that the pumps for agricultural purpose as well as for industrial purpose are installed in the very same well, that on 24.01.2002 3rd opposite party issued a bill to the complainant stating that he has to pay an amount of Rs. 4,050/- as there is additional load in consumer No. 6079. Since there was threat of disconnection complainant remitted the said amount under protest, that actually complainant had not committed any theft of power or any other malpractice. On 24.01.2002 itself, the 3rd opposite party issued a bill in connection with consumer No. 4701 whereby complainant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 7,004/-. They further alleged that there is theft of electric power in his premise. The said amount also remitted under protest on 31.01.2002. Again on 30.03.2002 opposite party issued another bill in connection with consumer No. 4701 for Rs. 6,701/-, that the allegations are as in the case of earlier bills, that the act of the opposite parties is highly illegal and without any basis, that all the 3 bills issued by opposite parties are on the basis of false presumptions, that complainant never used the agricultural connection for any other purpose and hence he never committed any theft of the power. Hence this complaint to declare that the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per bills dated 24.01.2002 and 30.03.2002 and to direct opposite parties to return the amount collected illegally from the complainant on the basis of the disputed bills and to pay compensation and costs to the complainant.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending interalia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the pumps for agricultural purpose and industrial purpose are installed in the very same well is false, that pumps are installed separately , that it is true that on 24.01.2002 an additional bill was issued in consumer No. 6079 for Rs. 4,050/-, that actually on 16.01.2002 the premises was inspected by the 3rd opposite party and found that the TMR seal provided at the left side of the meter was broken. It was also found that an additional load of 5 KW was connected unauthorizedly in the said consumer No., that on the basis of the facts found during inspection, site mahazar was prepared in the presence of the manager, that on that basis a penalty bill was served to the complainant, that on the very same day 3rd opposite party inspected the consumer No. 4701 and found that the energy from the service connection was used for industrial purpose, that is for making hollow bricks. The site mahazar was prepared in the presence of the manager of the firm and on that basis a penalty bill for Rs. 6,594/- was issued to the complainant, that the bill was issued according to law. Since complainant misused the energy, again on 11.03.2002 the premises was inspected by the special squad and found that the energy from the service connection under Consumer No. 4701 was misused for other purpose and therefore the penalty bill was issued to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as opposite parties had acted only as per the existing norms and rules. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per bills dated 24.01.2002 and dated 30.03.2002?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, 3rd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 & D2.
Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer Nos. 6079 and 4701. The former is under LT IV Tariff , while the latter is under LT V tariff. It has been the case of the complainant that the pumps for agricultural purpose as well as for the industrial purpose are installed in the very same wall. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 24.01.2002 3rd opposite party had issued a bill vide consumer No. 6079, for Rs. 4,050/-, which was remitted under protest, though he had not committed any theft of power or any other malpractice. It has also been the case of the complainant that on 24.01.2002 itself, the 3rd opposite party had issued another bill in connection with consumer No. 4701 for Rs. 7,004/- which was also remitted under protest, that again on 30.03.2002 3rd opposite party had issued another bill in connection with consumer No. 4701 for Rs. 6,701/- which was also remitted due to compulsion, that the allegations are as in the case of earlier bills. It has been contended by the complainant that 3rd opposite party had issued the aforesaid bills based on false presumption. Complainant's evidence consists of proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill in Consumer No. 6079 dated 24.01.2002 and its interim receipt dated 31.01.2002. On perusal of Ext. P2 bill it is seen that the said bill was prepared as per theft report of AE on 16.01.2002. Ext. P3 is the copy of the bill dated 30.03.2002 for Rs. 6447 and the copy of the receipt dated 06.04.2002. A perusal of Ext. P3 bill discloses that the said bill has prepared as per theft Report of APTS on 11.03.2002. Ext. P4 is the copy of the premises meter card in connection with consumer No. 6079. Ext. P5 is the copy of the premises meter card in connection with consumer No. 4701. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that Ext. P1 bill was issued by the 3rd opposite party on inspection of the premises on 16.01.2002. It has been contended by the opposite party that it was found on inspection that the TMR seal provided at the left side of the meter in consumer No. 6079 was broken and that an additional load of 5 KW was connected unauthorizedly. Ext. D1 is the copy of the site mahazar prepared in the presence of the manager of the firm. It is submitted by the opposite party that the said mahazar got signed by the manager of the firm concerned. A perusal of Ext. D1 mahazar reveals that the undersigned therein had agreed to pay the fine to be determined by the KSEB. Further it has been contended by opposite parties that on 16.01.2002 itself the 3rd opposite party inspected the consumer No. 4701 and found that the energy from the said connection was used for industrial purpose. It has been contended by the opposite party that consumer No. 4707 was meant for agricultural purpose. Ext. D2 is the said mahazar report. The said mahazar is seen prepared in the presence of the manager of the firm concerned and got signed by him. Ext. D3 is the copy of site mahazar dated 11.03.2002. 3rd opposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant. As such the affidavit filed by the opposite party remains uncontroverted. Further it is seen that the bills were issued as per existing rules and on the basis of inspection conducted by 3rd opposite party and special squad. Complainant has never adduced evidence to controvert Exts. D1 to D3. In view of the above we do not find anything to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties have acted as per the conditions of supply of electrical energy. Complaint has no merits which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
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 March 2011.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 306/2002
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of the bill dated 24.01.2002 and its interim receipt dated
31.01.2002 in connection with consumer No. 6079
P2 - Copy of the bill dated 24.01.2002 and its interim receipt dated
31.01.2002 in connection with consumer No. 4701.
P3 - Copy of the bill dated 30.03.2002 for Rs. 6447/- and the copy
of the receipt dated 06.04.2002
P4 - Copy of the premises meter card in connection with consumer
No. 6079.
P5 - Copy of the premises meter card in connection with consumer
No. 4701.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of site mahazar dated 16.01.2002
D2 - Copy of site mahazar dated 16.01.2002
D3 - Copy of site mahazar dated 11.03.2002
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
