By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:
Brief of the complaint:
The Complainant is having an electricity connection for his Rice Mill having consumer No. 320. The connection was taken in the year 1975 and he has been running the rice mill for his livelihood. The Complainant has been paying the current bill without any arrear. While so the Complainant received a notice dated 01.03.2010 demanding to pay Rs. 17,372/- as penal charges for non segregation of light. On receipt of the notice the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.2 and enquired. Opposite Party informed that the Complainant should install a light in the mill and the penal charge is levied on account of failure to install light. It is submitted that light is not required in the rice mill since it is not operated beyond evening and only in morning one or two hours run the mill. As a matter of fact the mill is run for the last 35 years. The KSEB officials are conducting inspection in the mill and at no point of time they have required the Complainant to install a light in the premises. So far no notice is issued to the Complainant to that effect. Therefore the act of the Opposite Party in issuing bill dated 01.03.2010 is clearly arbitrary and illegal. Thereafter the Complainant has received a bill dated 11.05.2010 demanding payment of Rs. 17,372/- along with regular bill of Rs. 780/-. Therefore it is prayed to declare that demand notice No.333365 issued to the Complainant demanding penal charges for non segregation is illegal and the Complainant is not liable to pay the said amount, to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party, restrain the Opposite Party from disconnecting the service connection, to pass such other relief deems fit to grant.
2. Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version. In the version they admitted that the Complainant availed electricity connection vide connection No.320 under LT IV tariff. There are no pending bill from the consumer except the bill in dispute. The Complainant is bound to pay the bills issued to him. The bills in dispute was issued since the consumer failed to segregate the power meter and light meter in his premises. Hence there is no merit in the complaint hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. On going through the Complaint and version the following points are to be considered.
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party?.
Relief and cost.
4. Point No. 1:- To prove Complainants case he has filed the chief affidavit of his son Sri. P. Sajith kumar. He has also produced Ext.A1 to Ext.A3. Ext.A1 is the authorisation letter of the Complainant by which he authorised his son to tender oral and documentary evidence in this case on behalf of him. Ext.A2 is the disputed bill dated 01.03.2010 issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant demanding the Complainant to pay Rs. 17,372/- being the penal charges for non segregation light loan from 11/02 to 10/07. Ext.A3 is the bill dated 11.05.2010 in which Rs. 17,372/- is noted as arrears.
5. Sri. V.P. Pramod was appointed as Advocate Commission by this Forum. He inspected the Rice Mill on 09.09.2010 after giving notice to both sides and filed his report. It is marked as Ext.C1. In his report he stated that he could see three bulb holders with dust in the switch board. He could not see light point either inside or outside of the Rice Mill.
6. No evidence is adduced by Opposite Parties. It is clear that the Complainant has got electric connection during the year 1975. At that time Opposite Parties officials were inspected the building and they satisfied that the Complainant has complied all the formalities required by them. If there is light load in the premises of the mill the Complainant has to segrate the light meter in his premises. But on going through the Ext.C1, the other documents and deposition before us it is clear that there is no light points or lights either inside or outside of the Rice Mill. It is clear that the three holders found on the switch board is to use for O' Volt bulb to ascertain whether there is any power supply or not. So without light points, issuing bill for penal charges for non segregation is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Point No.1 decided accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- The Complainant is entitled to cancel the Ext.A2 bill issued to him by Opposite Parties. He is also entitled to get Rs. 1,500/- as cost and compensation.
In the above result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Ext.A2 bill for Rs. 17,372/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand Three hundred and Seventy Two only) issued by Opposite Parties to the Complainant is squashed. The Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand Five hundred only) to the Complainant as cost and compensation of this litigation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 14th October 2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. P. Sajith kumar Teacher.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibit for the Complainant:
A1. Letter of Authorisation. dt:07.10.2010.
A2. Demand Notice cum disconnection Notice. dt:01.03.2010 .
A3. Bill. dt:11.05.2010.
C1. Notice.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
