IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:            President

K.P.Preethakumari:                  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                        Member

Dated this,  the  27^th day of  January,  2009

C.C.No.192/07

K.V.Prabhakaran Jolsier,

S/o.K.V.Narayanan Gurukkal,             

Pookkoth Nada,                                                           :         Complainant

Thaliparamaba – 670 101.

Vs.

1.       The Assistant Executive Engineer,

 K.S.E.B.Thaliparamba,

2.  The Deputy Chief Engineer,

     Vaidhuthi Bhavan,

     Kannur.

3.  The Secretary,

     Vaidhuthi Bhavan,

     KSEB,    Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The Deputy Chief Engineer,

     KSEB, Sreekandapuram.

    (Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala)

                                                O R D E R

Smt. K.P.Preethakumari, Member

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to reconnect the electricity connection disconnected by Opposite Parties along with Rs.46,000 as compensation with cost.

            The case of the Complainant is that he is running a “Jyothishalayam” and is paying electricity   charges for consumer    No.13700 in the said building.  Electricity bill for the month of October, 2007 was given to the Complainant on 26.10.2007 for Rs.80/- after taking meter reading.  When the Complainant went to the Opposite Party’s office for making payment of the bill, the person sitting in the counter told the Complainant that he had to pay additional amount of Rs.364/- along with the bill of Rs.80/-.  When the Complainant asked for the bill for the above said Rs.364/- he was not ready to give the bill.  On the next day, while the Complainant went to make payment of the entire amount of Rs.444/-, the official of the 1^st Opposite Party told that the Complainant would not get the bill and receipt for Rs.364/- and he warned the Complainant that the entire amount of Rs.444/- is not deposited by 14.11.2007, the entire connection would be disconnected on that day.  So on 09.11.2007, the Complainant sent a complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party and the minister in charge of electricity.  But instead solving the problem, the electricity connection was disconnected on 15.11.2007 itself.  So the Complainant had suffered so much of mental hardship and financial loss and all these were caused due to the deficient service of the Opposite Party.  Hence the complaint.

            On receiving the complaint notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared through Adv.T.Sarala and filed version contenting that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties and later on 3^rd Opposite Party and 4^th are impleaded as parties.  The Opposite Parties admit that the Complainant is a consumer as per Consumer No.13700 under Electrical Section, Taliparamba and submitted that bimonthly spot billing system is in existence in the premises.  The Opposite Party further submits that the energy meter kept in the premises of the Complainant was not functioning properly.  So the meter was changed on 07.06.2007.  After changing the meter a bill was issued by the Opposite Party on 27.06.2007 and the meter reading for the period 07.06.2007 to 27.06.2007 were 32 units.  Bimonthly bill for 81 units was given to the consumer on the basis of above reading for 60 days and the bill was remitted by the consumer. On 08.07.007, the spot biller came to the premises of the Complainant for taking the meter reading the room was locked and he cannot take the actual meter reading.  So the bill was issued on the basis of the consumption of previous period.  A bimonthly bill for Rs.364/- was issued to the consumer on 25.08.2007 and the Complainant has not remitted the bill on 26.10.2007 the spot biller came to the premises of the consumer again, the room was locked and he could not take the actual meter reading.  So the bill for minimum charge was issued for Rs.80/-.

            On 26.10.2007, the consumer came to the KSEB office for remitting the bill for the month of October at the time he was informed that the previous bill is in arrears and only after clearing the previous dues he can remit the current bill.  The consumer is reluctant to remit the earlier bill.  The consumer clearly knows that the bill is issued regularly in every two months and not for 4 months.  If the consumer insisted for the duplicate bill, the Opposite Parties were ready to give the bill.  Moreover he has not raised any complaint before the Opposite Party about the meter reading or the bill amount.  The Opposite Parties disconnected the service connection for non-payment of the bill after the stipulated period mentioned in the bill.  Later as on 09.01.2008, the consumer remitted entire arrears, and on the same day supply was resumed.  So there is no wilful negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The Opposite Party further contented that the consumer number is registered in the name of one Sri.Shahul Hameed and hence they have no contractual obligation with the Complainant and hence Complainant is not a consumer of Opposite Parties.

            Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 

1.      Weather the Complainant is a consumer?

2.      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

3.      Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief?

4.      Relief and Cost?

The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, and Exts.A1 to A9 and B1 to B3.

Issue No.1:

The Complainant has produced Ext.A1, which is a photocopy of Cooli kaichit between the Complainant and Sri.Shahul Hameed.  As per the Consumer Protection Act u/s 2(d)(ii) Consumer means any person hires or avails any services for consideration which has been paid, or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services, other than the person who hires or avails of services for consideration, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person.  From Ext.A1 it is clear that the Complainant is using the services with the approval of the above said Shahul Hameed and hence we hold that the Complainant is a beneficiary and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant.

            The further case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Parties have disconnected his electricity connection by saying that he has to pay the electricity bill for August-September 2007.  But the Complainant contented that he has not received any bill for the above moths and he was told by the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.364/- as electricity charge for the month of August-September 2007, when he had approached them to pay the bill for October 2007.  But according to Opposite Party, the electric meter of the above consumer number was changed on 07.06.2007 as the meter was faulty and the meter reading was taken on 27.06.2007 as 32 units as 20 days consumption and based on the bill was issued for average consumption of 81 units for 60 days and the consumer paid the same.  On 25.08.2007 the spot biller gone to the premises, it was found locked and hence he could not take reading and hence bill was issued as an average consumption of 80 units amounting to Rs.364/- and on the subsequent month also the door was found locked and hence bill for Rs.80/- which is the minimum in the category was issued and the connection was disconnected because of the non-payment of the bill and hence there was no negligence on the part of Opposite Party.  It is an admitted fact that the Complainant has not paid the bill for the disputed period ie. during August-September 2007.  The Opposite Party has produced a photocopy of bill September 2007 and as per this the Complainant has to pay Rs.364/- as bimonthly current charge.   It is also admitted that the Complainant has remitted the due amount on 09.01.2008 after the disconnection and his electricity connection is already restored.  Complainant’s version is that because of the non-receipt and non-issuance of the bill he was kept the amount in arrears.  He has no case that he has not used the electricity during the month of August-September 2007.  So it is the duty of the customer to pay the current bill that he had already used.  Moreover the Opposite Parties were used to issue bills during every bimonth and at the back side of the electric bill it is mentioned that “GsX¦nepw ImcWhim c­p amk¯n\Iw doUnwKv FSp¡m³ IgnbmsX h¶m Cu _nÃn tcJs¸Sp¯nbn«pÅ XpI XpSÀ¶pÅ ssZzamk§fnepw ASt¡­XmWv.  _nÃv In«m¯ hnhcw A[n¡mcnIsf Adnbn¡pI.“

The Complainant has not proved that he has already informed the authorities that the bill for the disputed period was not obtained.  Moreover the consumer is duty bound to pay for the bill for the electricity which he has already consumed.  Even if the bill is not issued he can pay the amount as per the preceding bill.  So in this case considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are not in a position to attribute deficiency of service to Opposite Parties and hence the Complainant is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

            Member                                   Member                                   President

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Kacheet executed by the complainant

A2. Regd. Letter sent by the complainant to the 1^st O.P.

A3&4. Postal receipt and AD.

A5. Letter issued by Kerala Govt

A6. Makthab evening daily

A7. Letter sent by the Complainant to Chief Minister of Kerala

A8. Reply letter sent by the office of Chief Minister

A9. Electricity bill and receipt

Exhibits for the opposite party :

B1: Copy of the invoice issued to the complainant

B2: Copy of meter reading register

B3: Copy of meter readers diary

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1.K.V.Prabhakaran

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

                                               / /Forwarded by Order//

                        Senior Superintendent.

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.