Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/135/2015

K.Sundar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer O & M - Opp.Party(s)

S.Mariselvam

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  11.08.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 30^th   DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.135/2015

 

 

K.Sundar,

S/o.Thiru.Kannan,

No.216, F-Block, 1^st Street,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai - 600 102.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Assistant Engineer O & M,

Shenoy Nagar,

Ganapathy Colony,

O – Block,

Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 600 102.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 01.09.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.S.Mari selvam

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : R.Amernath Rao Khande

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to revise and refund the excess bill amount collected from the Complainant and also compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has got domestic Electricity Connection No.163-006-39 in his own house at No.216, F-Block, 1^st Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai - 600 102. Prior to January 2013 the Complainant was residing with his wife and his mother. In January 2015 the Complainant left his own house with his wife to a rental house, situated at No.225 Vallar Kudiyiruppu, Anna Nagar West and Chennai – 40 for convenience of their work. After that, his mother only was residing there and there was no fridge, air-conditioner and washing machine etc in that house.  

          2. The meter reading officer noted down the reading for the period 07.01.2015 to March 2015 and the charges noted was Rs.15,472/- for the said period. The Complainant asked the Concerned Officer about the noting of exorbitant charges and they replied that the reading meter is defective and they cannot note the actual consumption unit. The Complainant explained to the Concerned Officer previous to the above said period, the consumption unit was about 150 and charges only Rs.245/- and therefore, there is no reason to jump for an huge amount. The request of the Complainant to revise the bill ended in vain. However, in order to avoid from the disconnection of power supply, he paid the bill immediately.

3. During the next period from March 2015 to 11.05.2015 the reading officer noted the charges of Rs.11,053/- without noting the consumption of units. The above said both the bills are defective and fixed without any basis and deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party  is liable to revise the above said bills. The Complainant sent legal notice dated 16.07.2015 and there was no reply from the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to revise and refund the excess amount from the bill amount paid as above and also compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.      

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The EB power connection No.163-006-399 was effected in the name of Thiru.K.Sundar, at No.216.F Block, Anna Nagar. The routine assessment cycle to the above service connection is in odd month.  The assessment for the month of January, 2015 for the energy consumed from 12.11.2014 to 07.01.2015 was taken on 07.01.2015 and recorded as 150 units and the assessment amount was Rs.245/-. The energy consumed for the month of 03/2015 was assessed under average basis by taking the previous 4 months consumption as detailed below:

          Consumption recorded in 07/2014 ……        2690 units

          Consumption recorded in 09/2014 …….       2300 units

                                                Total                     4990 units

Bi-Monthly average consumption   = 4990/2  =    2595 units

 

The above average consumption was arrived as per the TNERC supply code Regulation 11 (2). The energy charge for the above consumption charges Rs.15,495/- was collected. The energy recorded and collected in the month of 01/2015 was only 150 units, the period is also taken as defective and the bill for the month of 01/2015 have to be revised on the average basis. The short fall in the assessment was worked out as Rs.15,052/- (Rs.15,495-443 = 15,052/-) duly adjusting the amount already paid and communicated to the consumer for payment vide, this office letter dated 09.07.2015.

          5. The defective meter was replaced by a healthy meter on 23.03.2015. It is seen that the consumption recorded in the new meter for the subsequent months (i.e., for 05/2015 and 07/2015) were also higher side only. Moreover the shortfall amount under dispute was levied for the energy consumed during the period from 12.11.2014 to 06.01.2015 only. The shortfall amount claimed in the above letter dated 09.07.2015 is reasonable, genuine and in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulation Commission’s Regulations.  The opposite party  suitably replied to the notice sent there is absolutely no  motive to harass the complainant alleged and it is only alleged by the complainant  for the purpose of the case but nothing else. There is no negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party at all in this case and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.     

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having a domestic Electricity Connection No.163 – 006 – 39  in his own house  at No.216, F-Block, 1^st Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 102  and  for the period 07.01.2015 to March 2015, the consumption charges was noted as Rs.15,472/- and subsequently for the period from March 2015 to 11.05.2015 the consumption charges noted as Rs.11,053/- and during that period the meter was not working and prior to January as on 07.01.2015 only a sum of Rs.245/- was charged for consumption of 150 units and  Ex.A1 is the E.B Card shows the consumption charges and Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 are the bills for the payment charges for the period January to May 2015 and the Complainant issued Ex.A5 notice and acknowledged by him under Ex.A6.

8. The Complainant contended that for the above said two periods  from January to March the consumption charges was Rs.15,472/- and for the period   March to May the consumption charges was Rs.11,053/-  noted was exorbitant and the Complainant and his wife left from their own house to a rental house situated at No.225,  Vallar Kudiyiruppu, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 40 for convenience of their work and previous consumption charges before January 2015  was only Rs.245/- and therefore without meter working, the Opposite Party arrived the above amounts without fixing the unit is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party  and therefore the above said charges for the above said period have to be revised and refunded to him.  

9. The Opposite Party would argue that the Complainant and his wife was residing only in that address during the above period and no proof filed to establish that they were residing in a rental house for the above period, further  due to  failure of the meter to work, the previous  four months  consumption units were taken and average was arrived and fixed the charges for the disputed period  and after arriving an amount of Rs.15,495/- was communicated to the Complainant  from the Opposite Party office letter dated 09.07.2015 and further the defective  meter also replaced on 23.03.2015 with new meter and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.  

10. The Opposite Party specifically pleaded in his written version that while taking the subsequent month reading on 9.3.2015 the defective meter was noticed and the same was replaced with new one on 23.3.2015.  The Opposite Party assessed based on previous four months consumption and arrived units and also calculated the amount of Rs.15,495/-. The Opposite Party also sent communication to the Complainant about the assessment of the bill amount through its office letter dated 9.7.2015.  These facts were not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed subsequent to the filing of the written version.  The Complainant conveniently suppressed the Opposite Party letter dated 9.7.2015.  If at all, the Complainant aggrieved he has to challenge the letter dated 9.7.2015 how the consumption charges arrived by the Opposite Party was wrong. Further, Ex.A1 consumption card reveals that as on 12.05.2014 the charges fixed for him  is Rs.9,792/-, as on 09.07.2014 the charges fixed at Rs.14,433/-, as on September 2014 the charges fixed at Rs.12,190/- and as on 12.11.2014 the charges fixed at Rs.9,028/- before the lowest consumption charges of Rs.245/- was fixed on 07.01.2015. Therefore, the Complainant consumed more units and thereby he had paid heavy charges as stated above and therefore, the  such circumstances proves that  the Complainant was in the habit of consuming more units and also paid heavy charges to the Opposite Party. Therefore, during the disputed period the amount arrived by the Opposite Party cannot be taken as exorbitant charges as alleged by the Complainant.    

11. The Complainant would contend that during that disputed period, he was residing in a rental house at west Anna Nagar.  No proof filed by the Complainant to show that he took a rental house as stated by him and therefore as contended by the Opposite Party we hold that during the relevant period the Complainant has not resided in a rental house and he only resided in his own house. 

12. Therefore, as the Complainant has not established how the consumption charges arrived at the Opposite Party letter dated 9.7.2015 was wrong and also he had not established that he was residing in a rental house as stated by him, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service in fixing the consumption charges.       

13. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Electricity Card

Ex.A2 dated 31.03.2015                   Bill No. 163FS5041

Ex.A3 dated 30.05.2015                   Bill No. 163 AR288848

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Letter sent by Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 16.07.2015                   Notice sent by Complainant

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Acknowledgement Card

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

 

                                      ……..  NIL …….

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT