Kerala

Idukki

CC/10/189

K.N.Somasekharan Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Lissy.M.M & Adv.George Jacob

30 Dec 2010

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/189
 
1. K.N.Somasekharan Nair
Kuttikkattil(H),Kumaramangalam village,Kanjiramattom,Thodupuzha East.P.O
Idukki
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Assistant Engineer
No.1 Section,KSEB,Thodupuzha Division,Vyduthi Bhavan,Thodupuzha
Idukki
Kerala
2. The Executive Engineer
No.1 Section,KSEB,Thodupuzha Division,Vydyuthi Bhavan,Thodupuzha
Idukki
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

DATE OF FILING :06.09.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of December, 2010


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.189/2010

Between

Complainant : K.N.Somasekharan Nair represented by

K.N.Surendran, S/o Narayanan Nair,

Kuttikkattil House,

Thodupuzha East P.O,

Kanjiramattom,

Idukki District.

(By Advs: George Jacob & M.M.Lissy))

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

No: 1 Section, Thodupuzha Division,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Thodupuzha.

2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

No: 1 Section, Thodupuzha Division,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Thodupuzha.

(Both by Adv: C.K.Babu)

O R D E R

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)


 

The complainant is running a cool bar under the name “Kuzhikkattil Refreshment”. The complainant is a consumer of KSEB with consumer No.3588. The electric connection is intended for running the cool bar at Thodupuzha. He was paying the electricity bills regularly. On 24.05.2010 the premises was inspected by the opposite party and prepared a mahazar. On 29.05.2010 the complainant was served a bill demanding Rs.15,448/-. It is not stated in the bill as to how the electricity was used and no explanation was given by the opposite party. On 3.05.2010 the complainant purchased an induction cooker, but it was not in working condition. The complainant has not done anything unauthroisedly. Alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for a direction to cancel the bill and to pay compensation.
 

2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that in the inspection conducted by the officials of the KSEB on 24.05.2010, it was found that the connected load of the unauthorised extension was 3030 Watts connected to the system whereas the registered connected load of the consumer No.3588 was 150 Watts under LT VII B tariff. LT VII B tariff assigned to the complainant was ordered to be changed to LT VIIA. At the time of inspection the consumer was available at the premises. A site mahazar was prepared and a copy of the same was handed over to the complainant. At the time of inspection the induction cooker was found connected and using. So a penal bill for Rs.15,448/- was given . The Board had allowed the complainant to remit the bill in instalments. He remitted all instalments. The inspection conducted after informing him and in the presence of the complainant and he had signed on the mahazar. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any of the direction sought for.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and no oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- Admittedly, the complainant availed an electric connection to his cool bar and he was paying electricity charges regularly. Now the dispute relates to a penal bill issued by the opposite party. The complainant has given evidence as PW1. Ext.P1 is the cash bill of the induction cooker which was purchased on 3.05.2010 from Ahalya Crockery Shop, Thodupuzha. Ext.P2 is the copy of site mahazar prepared on 24.05.2010. Ext.P3 is the copy of the reassessment notice. Ext.P4(series) are the copy of the instalment facility for penal bill and monthly electricity bills. The complainant has requested for instalment payment and that was granted. Ext.P4(a) is the copy of the order of the instalment facility for the penal bill. He paid all instalments. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that the inspection was done in his presence. In fact the complainant has also admitted that he has an induction cooker but it was not working. The induction cooker was purchased on 3.05.2010 and it was not working. Now the main grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not convinced him regarding the induction cooker. Ext.P1 cash bill would shows that the induction cooker was purchased on 3.05.2010 and it was not working. Ext.P2 mahazar was prepared on 24.05.2010. So we think that the induction cooker was used from 3.05.2010 to 24.05.2010. So the claim for arrears of the average rate cannot be correct. There was lapses on the part of the employees. Therefore the dispute can be properly settled only by calculating the consumption of electricity for the electric energy of induction cooker as it is purchased on 3.05.2010 to 24.05.2010, the date of inspection. Therefore the impugned bill Ext.P4(a) is to be cancelled and the opposite party should reconsider the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity for the complainant of being heard.
 

In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.P4(a) bill for an amount of Rs.15,448/- and issue fresh bill by calculating the consumption of electricity for the electrical energy of induction cooker as it is used from 3.05.2010 to 24.05.2010, the date of inspection, after giving a chance for hearing the complainant.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2010
 

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - K.N.Surendran

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Cash Bill dated 3.05.2010 for Rs.3,095/- issued by M/s.Ahalya Crockery,

Thodupuzha

Ext.P2 - Carbon copy of site mahazar dated 24.05.2010 prepared by

Subash.B, Sub Engineer, KSEB No.1 Section, Thodupuzha

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Reassessment Notice dated 29.05.2010 issued

by the Ist opposite party

Ext.P4(a) - Copy of the order of the instalment facility for the Penal Bill for Rs.15,448/-

Ext.P4(b) - Photocopy of Provisional Assessment Bill dated 29.05.2010 for Rs.11,683/-

Ext.P4(c) - Photocopy of current bill dated 10.12.2009 for Rs.1,339/- issued by the

opposite parties

Ext.P4(d) - Photocopy of current bill dated 8.02.2010 for Rs.3,232/- issued by the

opposite parties

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil


 


 


 

 
 
[HONABLE MR. Laiju Ramakrishnan]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Bindu Soman]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.