Kerala

Kottayam

CC/99/2005

AJI CHACKO - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETORY - Opp.Party(s)

27 Sep 2008

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. CC/99/2005

AJI CHACKO
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

SECRETORY
ASST ENGINEER
ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. K.N Radhakrishnan 3. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the Petitioner's is as follows: Petitioner is conducting business in opticals in the name and styles as Ancheril Opticals. Petitioner is the consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 5404 petitioner is paying the electricity bills regularly. According to the petitioner income from the optical business is his only source of livelihood. The average bill of the petitioner is Rs. 1,500/-. On 26..3..2005 a bill was served to the petitioner by the opposite party for an amount of Rs. 1,02,452/-. The petitioner states that he has not consumed electricity for such an exorbitant amount and there was no occasion for him to use such an excessive electricity. The petitioner on 26..3..2005 submitted a complaint to the -2- second opposite party disputing the bill amount but the opposite party so far not given any details or reply to the same. The petitioner alleged that issuance of exhorbitant bill without any basis is arbitrary, illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. So the petitioner prays for setting aside the bill dtd: 26..3..2005 for an amount of Rs. 1,02,452/- and to restrain the opposite party from disconnecting the electric connection. Petitioner claims Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury sustained to him and he claims Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. The 3rd opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of the other opposite parties contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner is conducting 2 different commercial establishments under the name and style as Ancheril Opticals and Ancheril Jewellery by engaging many employees with the intention of making profits. So, the petitioner will not come under the definition of 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Hence they pray for dismissal of the petition as not maintainable. The opposite party further contented that two establishments of the petitioner are located in 3 shop rooms of a multistoried building. The building owner had taken separate connections for each room. When the petitioner converted 3 rooms in to two rooms and started two establishments. Thus meter of consumer 5401 and 6578 happened to be in the optical shop of the petitioner under the name Ancheril Opticals and meter of consumer No. 5402 happened to be in the Ancheril Jewellery owned by the petitioner. As per office records Ancheril Opticlas is being functioning with electric connection with consumer No. 5401 and 6578 and the registered ownerof the connection is Rev. Thomas Samuel, the treasurer, CSI Madhya -3- Kerala Mahaidavaka, Kottayam. The opposite party states that petitioner is using 2 connection in one establishment without any prior consent of the board is against the provisions electricity Act and condition of the supply of electrical energy. According to opposite party , petitioner is consuming energy for both consumer number by altering middle shop unauthorisedly. They contented that as a result of tampering of the installation, the meter of consumer No. C 6578 is not showing any reading, on the other hand meter of consumer No. 5401 is working properly. The opposite party contented that while taking meter reading on 26..3..2005 bimonthly consumption of the petitioner for February and March 2005 was found as 11219 units and accordingly bill for Rs. 1,02,457/- was issued and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the electricity. They contented that bill is bill based on the consumption recorded in the meter installed in the petitioners premises. They contented that as 2 premises (Consumer No. 5401, 6578) are being illegally fed from consumer No. 5401, there is chances for energy leakage due to the tampering of installation and use of machines in the optical shop. According to the opposite party since the petitioner has no complaint that the meter is faulty or regarding the reading taken by the board employes opposite party is not at all responsible for the earth leakage. Opposite party admitted that second opposite party received letter from the petitioner regarding the disputed bill. On receiving the letter second opposite party inspected the meter and found irregularity in the meter. The matter has been communicated to the petitioner, who was present there. Since the matter was intimated in person according to the opposite party there is no relevance for a written reply to the petitioner. So the opposite party contented that the -4- bill issued to the petitioner is legal and no deficiency in service can be attributed against the opposite party. So they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their cost. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parteis Ext. A1 to A11 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties. Court Ext. C1 report , commissioner is examined as CW1. Point No. 1 No seperate point with regard to maintainability is raised but the opposite party raised a contention that petitioner is doing the said business with an intention for making profit, by engaging employees, and petitioner is conducting another shop is the name and style of Ancheril Jewellery he will not come under the definition of the word 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Since the opposite party has not adduced any positive evidence to prove that the petitioner is conducting some other business for profit making we are of the opinion that the petition is maintainable. Petitioner produced the disputed bill Dtd: 18..4..2005 for an amount of Rs. 1,02,457 and said document is marked as Ext. A5 counsel for the petitioner argued that since the average bimonthly bill issued to the petitionerwill come around Rs. 1,500/- issuance of exorbitant bill is illegal and the petitioner is not so far consumed an amount of 10219 units of energy. The opposite party on the other side contented that since the petitioner has no allegation with regard to fault with meter he is legally liable to pay the -5- bill amount shown in Ext. A5. The electrical inspector, who was appointed as commissioner was examined as CW1 and the commission report was marked as C1. CW1 has disposed that there was earth leakage in consumer No. 5401. CW1 stated the formula for finding current ie I = V/R, I means current, V means voltage and R- means resistance. CW1 stated that voltage is constant and resistance is not constant so, if the value of “R” decreases value of 1 will increase or otherwise if the resistance decreases current increases. The resistance will depend upon the atmosphere temperature , moisture etc. CW1 disposed that in the wiring of the premises of the petitioner earth resistance is seen only 0..52 M instead of 1 M . He also deposed that resistance in the grinding machines is 0.338, 0.03 M instead of 1 So, due to the low resistance, according to the commissioner, there was chance of leakage of electrical energy. The commissioner further reported that in order to avoid earth leakage there was ELCB connected to the petitioner's premises. But the said ELCB machine was not seen working at the time of inspection. So, the commissioner reported that due to the non functioning of the ELCB there is chances for earth leakage of current. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the commissioner has disposed that earth leakage in wiring is 0.461 unit only and earth leakage from using first grinding machine is 2.046 and second grinding machine is .916 unit only. So if the machines are used for 24 hours of 58 days the loss due to the earth leakage is 2.215 units only. Since 3 KW connected load was allowed to the petitioner and if assume that 3 KW is used for entire time of 58 days then also consumption will come onlt 4176 units. So, petitioner's counsel argued that issuance of Ext. A5 bill for consumption of 10129 units of energy is -6- illegal. We are of the opinion that the inspection was done by the commissioner is long time after the filing of the petition and he reported the matters that came to his knowledge at the time of his inspection. So in our opinion the leakage and other parameters at the time of issuance of the bill may be greater than this. Since petitioner has no complaint with regard to the meter the case of earth leakage put forward by the opposite party is much probable. Since the opposite party as per meter reading actually supplied 10129 units of electrical energy to the petitioner they are legaly entitled to issue bill for the energy supplied. It is the duty of every consumer to keep the wiring, equipments and panel board in good conditions to avoid earth leakage. We do not find any deficiency in service with regard to the issuance of Ext. A5 bill. So point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1 , petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2008.




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P