THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.151/2008 Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Chandra Bose, Proprietor, Kalapurackal Rubber Products Industrial Development Plot, Athirampuzha, Kottayam (By Adv. Sudev Kumar) Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. Reptd. By its Secretary. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB Section, Ettumanoor. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner as a means of his livelihood is running a proprietary concern in the name and style as Kalapurackal Rubber Products. Petitioner had an electric connection with vide consumer No. 5890, with the opposite parties. According to the petitioner he is regularly paying the electricity bills and there is no dues till date. Opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 3986/- as back assessment bill alleging the consumer was under charged. According to the petitioner said bill was issued without any basis and is not legally sustainable and is a clear deficiency in service. So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite parties to pass an order stating that the petitioner is not liable to -2- pay the bill amount of Rs. 3986/-. Petitioner also claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the audit team of the opposite party conducted billing audit during 2/08 and point out that the consumer had been under charged for various reasons. Based on the remarks of the audit teams and verification of the records the Asst. Engineer, issued short assessment bill for Rs. 3986/- on 3..6..2008. Petitioner had not raised any objection to the assessing authority and filed petition before this Forum. On receiving copy of petition filed before the Forum and on the perusal of the records it was found that bill for Rs. 3986/- contains calculation mistakes and it was erroneous . So, the opposite party intimated the petitioner that the actual bill amount will be only Rs. 698/- and the opposite parties are ready to revise the disputed bill. So, the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service and on their part they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party. -3- Point No. 1 Case of the petitioner is that the bill issued to the petitioner Dtd: 3..6..2008 for an amount of Rs. 3986/- is without any basis and is under charged. Opposite party in paragraph 3 of the version admitted that disputed bill was erroneous and the actual bill amount will be only Rs. 698/-. Opposite parties revised the disputed bill for an amount of Rs. 698/-. Counsel for the petitioner argued that opposite party as per law cannot recover any due after a period of 2 years from the date from such sum become first due. Engineer appearing for the opposite party argued that the first due as stated in section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 is the bill date. In our view opposite party cannot recover any amount due from any consumer after a period of 2 years from the date such sum become first due as per 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003. It is correct that sum become first due on the date of issuance of the bill. In the version and counter affidavit filed by the opposite party it is admitted that the energy charges for 12/04, 3/05 and 8/06 were calculated mistakenly. If the energy charges were calculated correctly then the energy charges were payable on the due date for 12/04, 3/05 and 8/05 that become definitely on the same month. So, in our view the argument raised by opposite party is not sustainable and the claim of the opposite party is barred by section 56(2) of Electricity Act 2003. So act of the opposite party is issuing bill for an amount of Rs. 3986/- dt: 3..6..2008 is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. -4- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result the bill Dtd: 3..6..2008 for an amount of Rs. 3986/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner. Opposite party can adjust the cost amount in future bills. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt or the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 3..6..2008 for an amount of Rs. 3986/- Documents for the opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of the calculation register. Ext. B2: Copy of meter reading register. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
