DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of November 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Date of filing : 21/11/2013
CC No.195/2013
1.Sunilkumar
S/o.Late Kesavan,
Malampallayil Veedu,
Chunangad Post,
Ottapalam – 679511
2.Susheela.M
W/o.Kesavan,
Malampallayil Veedu,
Chunangad Post,
Ottapalam – 679511
3.Devarajan.M
Malampallayil Veedu,
Chunangad Post,
Ottapalam – 679511
4.Baburajan.M
Malampallayil Veedu,
Chunangad Post,
Ottapalam – 679511
5.Latha.M
Thelampattathazhathu Veedu,
Mukkam Post,
Kozhikkode
6.Sheela.M
Door No.15,
Kanthakonar Nagar,
Kaundampalayam,
Coimbatore – 30 - Complainants
(By Adv.Benny Varghese)
Vs
1.Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section
Office K.S.E.B.
Ambalappara Post,
Pin – 679512
2.Exe.Engineer,
K.S.E.B.
Electrical Division Office,
Shoranur Post.
3.The Secretary
K.S.E.B. Vaidyuthibhavan,
Pattom, Trivandrum - Opposite parties
(By Adv.K.N.Vijayaraghavan)
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SEENA.H PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainants are the legal heirs of Late Kesavan who is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.7074. Kesavan has applied for electricity connection for himself and 14 other houses in the locality under OYEC scheme. He has applied in his name as per the request of the Asst. Engineer. Cost calculated by opposite parties was Rs.73,740/-. Amount was paid and connection was received on 6/9/2003. Kesavan died on 16/01/2006. In the year 2010 a demand notice was served on the complainant for an amount of Rs.14,210/- as dues. According to complainant there was no due and hence amount was not paid. Thereafter opposite party has sent a revenue recovery notice dated 23/11/2012. According to complainant, he is not bound to pay any amount. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.
Opposite party resisted the complaint with the following contentions.
According to opposite party, late Kesavan has remitted Rs.73,740/- under OYEC scheme. On receipt of the said amount electricity line of 573 meters was drawn and electricity connection was given to late Kesavan and 12 other nearby houses. Subsequently at the time of audit of 2005-06, it was found that there is shortage of amount of Rs.12,210/- towards the amount collected as OYEC. So the audit committee meeting held on 27/10/2009 directed to recover the short collection amount of Rs.12,210/- and on that basis demand notice was issued. It was only a calculation mistake on the part of opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed by opposite parties. Hence complaint liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 & B2 marked on the side of opposite parties. PW1 marked on the side of complainant and DW1 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Heard both parties and perused records.
It is an admitted case of opposite party that connection under OYEC was provided to the complainant and 12 other house owners in the locality. According to them 573 meter line is provided @Rs.150/- per meter, total amount of Rs.85,950/- has to be levied, but due to oversight only Rs.73,740/- was levied and that was noted only at the time of audit. As per Ext.A1 connection was provided on 6/9/2003. Only after 7 years opposite party has issued notice for the balance amount. Notice marked as Ext.A2. Opposite party has admitted that it is due to their oversight, the amount was not levied earlier. It is not fair on the part of opposite party to tax the complainant for the oversight of their employees. Moreover complainant herein is not a party to the agreement between opposite party and late Kesavan. We have gone through Ext.B2 the order dated 7/11/2003 showing the revision of rates for various works. As per Ext.B2 Rs.150/- per meter is the revised rate for construction of CT single phase 12 wire line. Opposite party has relied on Ext.B2 for calculating the due amount from the complainant. As per Ext.B2 it is specifically provided that the revised rates shall be applicable with effect from 1/11/2003. As per Ext.A1 the connection to Consumer No.7074, is provided on 6/09/2003. Hence we are of the view that Ext.B2 is not applicable in this particular case.
Deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;.
From the foregoing discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the demand notice dated 21/08/2010 is liable to be set asided.
In the result complaint partly allowed and we order the following:
1.Demand notice dated 21/08/2010 is set asided.
2. Opposite parties shall pay complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of November 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – True copy of consumer Card No.7074
Ext.A2 – True copy of demand notice dated 21/8/2010
Ext.A3 – True copy of Revenue recovery notice dated 23/11/2012
Ext.A4 – True copy of Relationship certificate
Ext.A5 - True copy of Death Certificate of Kesavan
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 – True copy of letter dated 1/1/2010 issued Exe.Engineer, KSEB,
Shoranur to Sub Engineer, KSEB, Ambalappara
Ext.B2 – Copy of Abstract dated 7/11/2003 issued by Secretary, KSEB
Witness examined on the side of Complainants
PW1 – Sunilkumar.M
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1 – Velayudhan.K.C. Asst.Engineer, KSEB
Cost allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
