IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of November, 2011
Filed on 15-11-2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.301/2010
between
Complainant :- | Opposite parties:- |
Sri. V.P Jaimon S/o Thomas Pappachan , Vattathara, Puthenveedu, Ward No.II, Thykattussery Panchayath, Poochackal P.O, Cherthala Taluk (By Adv.E.D.Zacharias,Cherthala) | 1.The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical section, Poochackal, Cherthala Taluk. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board,Represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. |
O R D E R
(SRI. JIMMY KORAH, PRESIDENT)
The complainant case in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant is running a plastic manufacturing to eke out a living. The opposite parties provide electric energy to the complainant to run the said manufacture unit, and as such the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.10882. The complainant had been unfailingly remitting the energy charges with the opposite parties. The complainant, at length paid an amount of Rs.17476/-(Rupees seventeenthousand four hundred and seventy six only ) on 28th October 2010. Strangely still, the opposite parties issued to the complainant a bill bearing No196178 calling upon him to remit an exorbitant amount of Rs.465763/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and sixty three only ) with the opposite party towards energy charges. The opposite parties erroneously used multiple factor 2 instead of 40, and as such the complainant is liable to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.465763/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and sixty three only ) calculated from 7/2005to 8/2010. The opposite parties are disentitled to get any amount from the complainant. The calculation of the energy charges and the alleged multiplication factor are all without any basis. The complainant approached the opposite parties in vain. The opposite parties threatened the complainant of disconnection of energy supply. Feeling aggrieved with the exorbitant bill and the opposite parties' threats, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the opposite parties contention is that the complainant is not a consumer under consumer protection act. The energy was being consumed for profiteering. According to the opposite parties, this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issuance of short assessment Bill. Considerable fall in the consumption of energy by the complainant, the opposite parties carried out inspection in the complainant premise. The opposite parties found out that instead of using the multiplication factor 40 the opposite parties had applied 2 in the calculation of the energy charges. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is liable to pay an additional amount of Rs.448317/-(Rupees four lakhs forty eight thousand three hundred and seventeen only ) to the opposite party. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties fervently contend.
The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant, and the documents Ebts Al to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, Asst. Engineer of the opposite parties was examined and Exbts B 1 to B2 were marked.
Taking into account the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the material bill the opposite arties issued is lawful?
(b) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
We meticulously went through the materials placed on record by the parties. Going by the materials in its entirety it appears that definitely the complainant was paying off the bill amount regularly without any default. According to the complainant, still to his astonishment, the opposite parties issued a bill calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.465763/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and sixty three only ) towards energy charges. According to the opposite parties, they noticed a fall in the expected consumption by the complainant.· When an inspection was conducted in the complainant premise, it is revealed that there was a mistake in the application of the multiple factor with regard to the calculation of the energy charges. According to the opposite parties, the said mistake went unnoticed since 2005. On a first blush itself indisputably clear that the complainant is not guilty of the alleged mistake committed by the opposite parties. Concededly, the complainant was clearing off the bill issued by the opposite parties from time to time. According to the opposite parties itself, the mistake as to the calculation of the energy charges was committed by them. The contention of the opposite parties is that even though the oversight was on their part, they are empowered to recover the under charged amount from the consumer by issuing a fresh bill. Bearing in mind the opposite parties’ the said significant contention, we once again anxiously perused the entire documents available on record. It appears that save making such statements, the opposite parties have not adopted meaningful steps to substantiate their contentions. It is also crucial to notice that no material is forthcoming on the part of the opposite parties to show before us that any slip-up as alleged them ever took place. Similarly, as have been already observed, either no material is put record to prove that the opposite parties are entitled to recover the amount they claimed to have been undercharged. Thus viewing from any perspective, we are of the view that the opposite parties' contentions do not merit acceptance, more so in the absence of any material to substantiate or the least bit to support the same. Needless to say, the complainant is entitled relief.
6. In view of the facts and findings in the instant case, we hold that the Exbt Al bill dated 5th October 2010 for an amount of Rs.465763/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and sixty three only ) issued to the complainant by the opposite parties stands cancelled.
The order in IA.No. 129/2011 already passed in the instant case is hereby made absolute.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation or cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November 2011.
Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:- Ext. A1 to A3
Ext.A1 - Electricity Bill
Ext.A2 -Statement of reading and Rupees
Ext.A3 - Receipt of Electricity dated 28/10/2010
Evidence of the Opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F
.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by-
