THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.91/2009 Monday, the 26th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Nice John, Thalikaparambil Manarcadu P.O Kottayam. (By Adv.K. Kuruvilla John) Opposite parties : 1) The Senior Superintendent, KSEB, Aymanam, Kottayam. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam. 3) The Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Kottayam. 4) The Secretary, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is conducting business in the name and style as Ciya Rubber Products as a means of his livelihood. Petitioner purchased the said business concern from one T.V Joykutty on 31..1..2006. Petitioner availed the electric connection from opposite party even though the electric connection is in name of prior owner petitioner is using electricity as a beneficiary. According to the petitioner he is remitting bills as per demand of opposite party. On 28..2..2009 petitioner was served with a bill for an amount of Rs. 99,828/- Accompanied by the bill there is a notice stating that bill is -2- issued as short assessment as per the inspection of the RAM. According to the petitioner said bill is issued without any basis and act of the opposite party in issuing short assessment bill is a clear deficiency in service. So, she prays for a direction canceling the bill Dtd: 28..2..2009 for an amount of Rs. 99,828/- petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party name of the consumer as per records is one Sivadasan M.N, Jaison Rubbers, so petitioner has no locustand to file petition. Opposite party contented that since the petitioner is conducting business on commercial basis he is not a consumer. According to the opposite party bill issued is a short assessment bill. Meter of the petitioner was faulty and the faulty meter was replaced on 6/07. Bill was issued for the consumption on the meter faulty period. The bill is issued for the period of 2/07 to 4/07. During the said period meter of the petitioner was showing only less consumption. After replacing faulty meter bill is issued as per regulation 33 (2) of the terms and conditions 2005. According to the opposite party bill issued to the petitioner is legal and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Reliefs and costs. -3- Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A9 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced a copy of the disputed bill Dtd: 28..2..2009 same is marked as Ext. A8. Petitioner also produced a letter Dtd: 28..2..2009 said document is marked as Ext. A9. In Ext. A9 it is stated that Ext. A8 is issued as a short assessment bill for a period from 2/07 to 5/2007. According to the opposite party Ext. A8 bill is issued as a short assessment bill for the meter faulty period. Opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the meter of the petitioner is faulty. The inspection with regard to fault with meter was carried out by a standard reference meter available in the section office, which is tested calibrator and sealed by the electrical inspector. Here the opposite party has not produced any test result regard to the fault with meter. Opposite party nearly on the basis of assumption and presumption issued the short assessment bill. In our view the act of the opposite party in issuing the short assessment bill without any evidence of fault with meter is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Bill is a clear deficiency in service . Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill Dtd: 28..2..2009 for an amount of Rs. 99,828/- is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. -4- Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of April, 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: Copy of deed No. 4605/1996 Ext. A2: Copy of deed No. 339/06 Ext. A3: Copy of licence Dtd: 11..4..2008 Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 12..3..2007 Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 12..4..2007 Ext. A6: Bill Dtd: 12..5..2007 Ext. A7: Bill Dtd: 12..6..2007 Ext. A8: Bill Dtd: 28..2..2009. Ext. A9: Letter Dtd: 28..2..2009 Document for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of the meter reading register. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 7 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
