BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.55/2009 Between Complainant : Shiju M.P, Mylapparambil House, Mullakkanam, Rajakkadu P.O. Idukki. (By Adv: V.M Joymon) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Adimaly. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Rajakumari.
O R D E R
SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
The complainant is conducting a Small Scale Industry from 1993 under the name and style "Omega Plastic" Industry. Electric connection was taken from the opposite party on 1993 as consumer No.2146/RJD. He was paying the electricity bills regularly till 15.01.2008. He decided to cease the Omega Plastic Industry. So on 15.01.2008 the complainant made a written application to the 3rd opposite party, stating that to disconnect the electric connection. On 23.01.2008, the electric supply was disconnected. After the disconnection of electricity, the complainant made a written application to the 3rd opposite party for the refund of the additional cash deposit amount, Rs.3,300/-. On 18.12.2008, the opposite party refunded the deposit amount Rs.3,300/-. On 26.02.2009 the complainant was served a bill demanding Rs.66,179/-. It is not stated in the bill that how the electricity was used and no explanation was given by the opposite party. The complainant has not done anything unauthorizedly. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complainant has been filed for a direction to cancel the bill and to pay compensation.
2. In the written version filed on behalf of the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant was a consumer with consumer No.2146/RJD under LT.IV tariff in the name of Omega Plastics and got electric connection on 24.12.1994. The application dated 15.01.2008 filed by the complainant requested to dismantle the electric connection. On 23.01.2008 the supply to the premises was disconnected. The complainant requested to refund the cash deposit amount. The Executive Engineer refunded balance CD amount. The bill in question was originated on account of an inspection conducted by the AG's wing on December, 2008. The complainant was given service connection with a connected load of 1546 watts. But as per the inspection conducted, the total connected load, connected to the premises of the complainant exceeds the sanctioned load. As per the directions of the inspection squad, a penal bill of Rs.66,179/- was served to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any of the direction sought for.
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 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT:- Admittedly, the complainant availed electric connection to his industry and he was paying electricity charges regularly. Now the dispute relates to a penal bill issued by the opposite party. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.P1 is the bill as Rs.66,179/- dated 26.02.2009. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application dated 30.09.2008 requested to refund the cash deposit amount. The complainant as PW1 would state that the Executive Engineer refunded the balance CD amount as Rs.3,300/- on 18.12.2008. Ext.P1 bill was issued as per the direction of the Audit report of A.G. Now the main grievance of the complainant is that the bill was issued after the disconnection of electric supply and also the refund of the cash deposit amount of Rs.3,300/- on 18.12.2008. Ext.P1 bill dated 26.02.2009 that it represents the arrears for the Period 2007-2008. The electric supply was disconnected on 23.01.2008 and cash deposit amount also refunded. So the claim for arrears cannot be found to be scientific and realistic. There was lapses on the part of the employees. 3rd opposite party has given evidence as DW1, would state that as per the inspection conducted, the total connected load, connected to the premises of the petitioner exceeds the sanctioned load. It amounts to unauthorized use of electrical energy. Hence a penal bill of Rs.66,179/- was issued to the complainant. In the cross examination, DW1 admitted that the cash deposit amount of Rs.3,300/- refunded on 18.12.2008. The cash deposit is refunding only after clearing all the dues. So we think that some mistake has been happened to the opposite party. Therefore the impugned bill, Ext.P1 is to be cancelled.
In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the Ext.P1 bill dated 26.02.2009. No cost is ordered against the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2009.
Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Shiju M.P On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - S Sajukumar Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Bill for Rs.66,179/- dated 26.02.2009. Ext.P2 - Copy of application dated 30.09.2008. On the side of Opposite Party : nil
| HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, Member | HONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member | |