SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> The complainant Vijayalekshmi has filed the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The grievance of the complainant is that the complaint is the consumer bearing No.3594 of the opposite parties. The complainant is regularly paying the current charges on monthly basis. While so the complainant has received a notice from the 2nd opposite party demanding an amount of Rs.13,500/- as alleged additional current charges and fine. The allegations in the notice that the complainant has drawn connected load illegally and without the consent of the opposite parties to a nearby building. So the complainant is liable to pay fine and the charged for additional units consumed.<br /> 2. Notice were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties filed a version in which it is stated that the authorized connected load at the time of registering for electricity by the complainant was 100 watts – one bulb and one fan. Based on the irregularity notices by the meter reader, an inspection was conducted on 18.7.05 in the premises of the complainant by the Sub Engineer of Electrical Section, S.L. Puram. But the complainant has submitted an application for shifting the metering requirements to the new building only on 19.7.05 in after the date of inspection. <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 4. The case of the complainant is that complainant has filed an application for shifting the meter to the new building on 19.7.05 before the 2nd opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 document marked. On the side of the opposite parties RW1 and RW2 examined and Exts.B1 to B5 marked. Ext.B1 document clearly stated that the complainant has violated the Section 24 of the conditions supply of electrical energy. More over an inspection was conducted on 18.7.05 in the premises and site mahazor was prepared on that day, but complainant submitted application for shifting the meter to the new building only on 19.7.05. We perused the pleadings and evidence. The case of the opposite parties more probable then the case of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2008.<br /> Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH :<br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN :<br /> APPENDIX:- <br /> Evidence of the complainant:- <br /> PW1 - Gopalakrishnan Nair (Witness)<br /> Ext.A1 - Photo copy of the notice<br /> Ext.A2 - Photo copy of the bill<br /> Evidence of the opposite parties:-<br /> RW1 - C. Augustine (Witness)<br /> RW2 - Reghumon Asari (Witness)<br /> Ext.B1 - Letter dated 30.7.05<br /> Ext.B2 - Photo copy of the letter dated 9.8.05<br /> Ext.B3 - Photo copy of the proceedings of KSEB<br /> Ext.B4 - Photo copy of the information letter dated 24.8.05<br /> Ext.B5 - Mahazor<br /> // True Copy // By Order<br /> <br /> To Senior Superintendent<br /> Complainant/Oppo. parties/S.F<br /> Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-<br />