KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 10/2006

JUDGMENT DATED 22.02.2011

PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :   MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR       :   MEMBER            

APPELLANTS

1.     The Asst. Ex. Engineer,

K.S.E. Board, Electrical Major Section,

Pattanakkadu, Cherthala

2.     The Asst. Engineer,

     K.S.E.B.,

     Pattanakkadu, Cherthala.

                      (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Sakthichandran Nair)

                                         Vs

RESPONDENT

                      Sen. A.S.,

                      Ananda Bhavanam, Vettackal,

                      Kadakkarappally P.O.,Cherthala.

                          (Rep. by Adv. Sri. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT 

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN      :     MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred against the order dated 9.8.2005 of CDRF, Alapuzha in O.P  A. 54/04 where by the Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of RS. 10,000/- as compensation for the illegal disconnection and  Rs.  8,000/  as compensation for financial loss, disgrace and harassment along with costs of Rs.  2,000/- to the complainant.

          The case of the complainant  is that he is the beneficiary of the opposite parties.  The electric connection was in the name of his father and after his death his mother , wife and the child were enjoying the benefit of this connection.  In July 2003, the meter reader endorsed the meter reading as 624 units instead of 543 units.  On 28.7.2003, he complained about this to the Asst. Engineer and the sub Engeneer came on the same day itself and convinced the mistake.  Again on 29.7.2003 the Asst. Executive Engineer came and checked reading and directed to remit the entire bill amount and assured him that the excess amount will be deducted in the next bill.  As per the direction he remitted Rs. 268/- In Sept. 2003 the meter reader came and issued a bill for 53 units with endorsement door locked.  When the complainant went to the office of KSEB they added the figure 1 before the unit 53 and the energy charges corrected as Rs. 268/-.  Though he gave a written complaint, no reply was received. Then he submitted a registered complaint.  Instead of giving a reply the opposite parties pasted a notice in the house of the complainant and on 19,11.2003 without  giving time to reply the notice,  the  opposite parties illegally disconnected the energy.   The complainant submitted a complaint to the KSEB I.G. Vigilance dtd.   21.11.2003 and they directed to reconnect the supply.  On account of disconnection of electricity from 19.11.2003 to 18.12.2003 the complainant and his family members had to suffer a lot.  Hence he filed complaint  claiming a sum of  Rs. 80,000/- as compensation under various heads.

The opposite parties filed version and submitted that the complainant submitted an application requesting to correct the meter reading taken on 24.7.2003 and admitted that the meter reading taken by the meter reader was not correct.  The meter reader could not take reading in September 2003 being door locked.  The Electricity Board  insisted  the consumer to shift the meter to the outside of the building.  But the complainant was reluctant to remit Rs. 240/- towards shifting charges and the opposite parties adjusted the excess amount charged due to over sight.  Since the meter is faulty the average consumption cannot be determined.  The correct consumption can be ascertained after installing a good meter but the consumer did not co-operate with the opposite parties and did not remit current charge of 9/03 even after repeated requests.  After giving notice the supply was disconnected on 19.11.2003 and the supply was reconnected after remitting reconnection fee.  But he does not remitted the amount for shifting the energy meter.  But the excess amount collected was adjusted in the subsequent bills.  Hence there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and thus they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. .

          The evidence adduced consisted of oral testimony  of Pw1 and 2 and Exts. A1 to A15 from the side of the complainant.  From the side of the opposite parties Rw1 and 2 were examined and Exts. B1 to B6 were marked.

          We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the disconnection was due to non payment of the bill for Rs. 240/- towards shifting of the meter and the non payment of charges towards 9/2003.  His case is that the supply was disconnected after giving notice to the complainant and subsequently it was reconnected as per the direction of the executive engineer.   The learned counsel advanced the contention that the mistake in noting the meter reading as 624 units instead of 543 can not be a reason for the non payment of the charges which was due to the opposite parties and the disconnection consequent to the failure to remit the charges will not amount to deficiency in service .  He has  also attacked the directions of the Forum below to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for illegal disconnection and Rs. 8,000/- for financial loss disgrace and harassment with costs of Rs. 2,000/- on the ground that the complainant has not approached the Forum below with clean hands.   Hence he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 

          The findings and conclusions of the Forum below were supported by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.  He submitted that the opposite parties were negligent in taking the meter reading and instead of adjusting excess amount charged in the month of July, 2003 the opposite parties had issued demand notice for Rs. 240/- for installing the meter out side  the house and the said demand was only to harass the complainant.  It is also submitted by him that the opposite parties did not adjust any amount in the subsequent bills  and it was due to such non adjustment  that  the complainant does not pay the charges and the opposite parties have no  right to disconnect the service when the complainant was entitled to a substantial amount from the opposite parties.  It is submitted by him that the compensation awarded by the Forum below is not on the higher side and that  the Forum below had passed the order after  appreciating  the facts,  circumstances and  evidence on record  and thus he requested for the dismissal of the appeal.

          We find that the opposite parties themselves admitted their mistake in noting the meter reading and he also admitted that some amount was charged in excess which the complainant had paid for the bill of 7/03.  However it is strange to note that instead of adjusting the same in the next bill they issued the bill for previous average consumption and also demanded for Rs. 240/- for shifting  the meter outside the house.   The appellants would argue that they have disconnected the supply of the premises of the complainant after giving disconnection notice.  It is to be found that they have reconnected the supply as per the direction of the Executive Engineer.  It is also to be noted that the opposite party insisted for shifting the meter outside house of the complainant only when the complainant had given the complaint regarding the mistake in the meter reading and the excess amount charged thereafter.  We find that if the opposite parties were fair enough to admit their mistake they would  have deducted  the excess amount charged in the next bill itself.    In the instant case the opposite parties were hiding their mistake and were trying to find fault with the complainant in refusing to remit the charges.  It  is also observed that the supply was disconnected on 19.11.2003, and was reconnected only on 18.12.2003  which is after a period of one month.  Definitely the complainant and his family members might have suffered mental agony and hardships due to the disconnection.

The Forum below had awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for illegal disconnection and Rs. 8,000/- as compensation for financial loss, disgrace and harassment.  The total compensation of Rs. 18,000/- under various heads awarded by the Forum below is on the higher side.  It is true that the electric supply was disconnected and it remained disconnected for a period of one month.  It is to be noted that the disconnection was done due to non payment of electricity charges.  The evidence on record would show that both parties were negligent.  So separate compensation under different heads can be treated as excessive.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/- will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The costs of Rs. 2,000/- ordered by the Forum below is reasonable and the same is upheld. 

In the result,   the appeal is allowed in part thereby the order of the Forum below is modified to the extent that the appellants/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant.   The costs of Rs. 2000/- which was ordered by the Forum below is sustained.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs.

                          VALSALA SARANGADHARAN     :       MEMBER

                    S.  CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR               :         MEMBER

 ST