IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November , 2016
Filed on 17.12.2014
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.353/2014
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Abdul Shukkoor 1. The Senior Superintendent
Kuravan Thottunkal K.S.E.B., Punnapra Division
Vandanam P.O. Punnapra P.O., Alappuzha
Alappuzha
(By Adv. E. Hameed Kunju) 2. The Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B.
Punnapra Division, Alappuzha
(By Adv. Jayan. C. Das – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant was running hand-made bakery under the name and style of New Sight Bakaery at Vandanam. He has taken on rent the building conducted Borma and the Consumer No. is 20466. The bimonthly consumption in the bakery for the period 2013-14 was varied within a range of 700-800 units. But on 28.11.2014 he has got a bill, the bimonthly consumption as per the bill 2081 units and the bill amount is Rs.21,647/-. The higher reading caused by the lightening occurred in the premises before one month. So that the electricity passed through the meter in the said building and happened to increase the meter reading of the complainant and the complainant is not liable to excess charge in the bill issued by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The service connection was given in the name of Harikumar and the complainant is only the occupier of the premises and has no right to lodge a complaint against the opposite party. The electric connection was provided under LT VII A tariff and for commercial purpose and energy is used for running a bakery. Since the energy is used for a profit making business, the complainant is not a consumer. The higher reading was not caused by lightening as claimed by the complainant, but due to the higher consumption of units. The concerned field staff of the section visited the premises and examined the meter and found that the meter was running accurately. Now the bimonthly consumption came down to 697 units, the opposite party had demanded only the amount against the actual consumption recorded in the meter which is running properly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1, and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A5. The opposite party was examined as RW1.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. Point No.1:- According to the complainant he was running a hand-made Borma for earning his livelihood. The said Borma was taken on rent and he was paying the electricity bill. Opposite party has no case that the electricity in the said building was used by any other person. It is an admitted fact that all the electricity bills except the disputed bill was directly paid by the complainant himself. Hence the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable.
6. Points 2 & 3:- The allegation of the complainant is that due to the sudden thunder and lightening occurred in the premises higher reading was caused in the month of October and it was not due to the higher consumption of energy. The disputed bill is produced and it was marked as Ext.A1. The opposite party filed version stating that the higher reading was due to the higher consumption of energy. While cross examining the complainant he admitted that he has not given any written complaint regarding the defect of the meter. No effort was taken by the complainant to prove the defect if any of the meter used in the premises. At the same time in the version opposite party stated that the meter reading in respect of the same premises in the subsequent term of 1/15 has been taken on 24.1.2015 and the bimonthly consumption came down to 697 units. Ext.A4 evidenced the same. More over Exts.A2 and A3 also show that he was using 768 units and 720 units prior to the disputed bill. Complainant has not produced any evidence in support of his pleadings, mere pleading without evidentiary support hold no value.
7. From the above discussion, we could find that there is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties and the complainant is liable to pay the disputed demand notice amount.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. However the opposite party is directed to allow the complainant to remit the in 4 equal installments.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member):
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine. D. (Member):
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Abdul Shukkoor (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Bill for Rs.21,647/-
Ext.A2 - Bill for Rs.6438/-
Ext.A3 - Bill for Rs.6846/-
Ext.A4 - Bill for Rs.6386/-
Ext.A5 - Bill for Rs.6302/-
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vikasan. K.K. (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
