IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 11th day of November, 2011
Filed on 19-03-2010
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.75/2010
Between
Complainant:- | Opposite Party |
Sri. Purushothaman, S/o Vishwanathan Pillai, Kavil Kelunothu, Mannancherry village, Cherthala, Kalavoor. (By Adv. V. Mohandas, Alappuzha) | 1. Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaiduthy Bhavan, Thiruvanananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Executive engineer, Electrical section, S.L. Puram, Cherthala. (By Adv. A.Anil kumar, Alappuzha) |
O R D E R
SRI.JIM MY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant case in succinct is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties bearing consumer No.9129. On 12thMarch 2010, the 2ndopposite party working under the 1st opposite party trespassed into the complainant premise on the pretext of detecting theft. The 2nd opposite party and his men entered into the complainant premise in the wee hours. The opposite party threatened the family members of the complainant and even manhandled his son. The electric connection was severed and the meter and other apparatus were taken away. Placing the complainant in the grip of apprehension, the complainant was caused to affix signature on the Mahazar. The opposite party moved the Muhamma police to register a case against the complainant. The complainant filed a criminal complaint against the opposite party before JFMC,Chertala as to the opposite party's illegal acts. Even after dismantling the energy connection, the opposite party has not so far issued any demand notice nor has made assessment with regard to the alleged unauthorized use of energy. The opposite party acted fraudulently. The complainant sustained mental as well as monetary woes. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite party is that the complaint is unsustainable before this Forum for the complainant approached this Forum without exhausting the remedy available under the provisions VIS 126 &127 of Electricity Act 2003. According to the opposite party, on inspection it was found out that, the complainant tampered the meter, and caused 80% of the energy consumption not got recorded in the meter. When theft is detected, the opposite party has every right to take away meter and other allied equipments from the complainant premise to pursue the case further. Consequent to the theft detection, a provisional assessment bill dated 12th March 2010 for-an amount of Rs.1296258/-(Rupees twelve lakhs ninety six thousand two hundred and fifty eight only ) was issued to the complainant, the opposite party contends. The complainant had been caught for the same offence earlier during 2006. As per the existing law, the complainant is required to remit 50% of the assessed bill, strangely yet, the complainant had remitted only Rs.I00000/-(Rupees one lakh only ) with the opposite party. The opposite party acted in line with the provisions of the pertaining laws. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties fervently contend.
3. The complainant evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant and the documents Exbts Al to A4 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties affidavits and counter affidavits were filed, and Exbts B 1 to B4 were marked.
4. Going by the contentions of the parties the questions that come up before us for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the complainant has committed any theft of energy?
(b) Whether the opposite parties issued assessment demand notice to the complainant?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. The complainant case is that the on 12th March 2010, the 2nd opposite party working under the 1st opposite party trespassed into the complainant's premise in the guise of detecting theft of energy and assaulted the complainant's son and caused damage to his properties. On the other hand, the opposite parties contend that the theft in the complainant premise was detected and the procedures followed were in line with the provisions of law. According to the opposite party, an assessment bill was issued for an amount of Rs.1296258/(Rupees twelve lakhs ninety six thousand two hundred and fifty eight only ). Bearing the said contentions lively in mind, we cautiously perused the materials both parties put on record. It appears that the complainant, at the earlier stage raised the contention of non-issuance of bill and his son being assaulted; he did not make it a point to pursue the same seriously till the fag end of the instant case. Instead, the complainant forcefully argued that the bill issued by the opposite parties is vague and ineloquent. In this context, the immediate short question to be looked into is whether the bill issued by the opposite party is transparent and speaking. On a plain perusal of the bill it is unfolded that the bill issued by the opposite party is mysterious and vague being ineloquent. In this circumstance, we have no course open but to accept the contention of the complainant. We hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In view of the facts and findings in the instant case, we hold that the bill dated 12th March 2010 for an amount of Rs.1296258/-(Rupees twelve lakhs ninety six thousand two hundred fifty eight only ) issued to the complainant by the opposite parties stands cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to issue fresh transparent detailed bill taking into account the average electric consumption of the complainant prior to the disputed period as per law.
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 11th day of November, 2011
Sd/-Sri.Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri.K. Anirudhan:
Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext. A1 - First Information Report
Ext.A2 - Letter dated 29/03/2010
Ext.A3 - Cash sales coupon
Ext.A4 - Cash Bill dated 3.04.2010
Evidence of the Opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- sh/-
Compared by:-
