BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No.71/2003

Dated: 30..06..2009

Complainant:

V. Muraleedharan Nair, Lekshmi Rengam, Mudavoorppara, Balaramapuram, Proprietor, Kailas Computers and Communications, T.C.27/1896, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.

(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. K.S.E.B represented by its Assistant Executive Engineer, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M. Manikantan)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 09..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.1374, that the complainant is always prompt and regular in remitting the electricity charge without making any default, that the complainant normally makes the payment through cheque for remitting electricity charges, and that on 6/2/2003 opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.2,685/- to the consumer, the due date for remitting the said bill amount without fine was on 13/2/2003 and the last date for remitting the bill before disconnection of the electricity supply is 20/2/2003. Complainant issued a crossed cheque of Ananthapuram Co-operative Society Ltd., Kaithamukku dated 12/2/2003 for Rs. 2,685/- as payment for the electricity bill on 13/2/2003. Opposite parties issued a slip of paper with seal stating that “The cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 is rejected and returned back from the bank since the same belongs to Co-operative Society. Hence the cheque is returned herewith”. Actually the cheque was not presented for collection by KSEB and no Cheque Return Memo was issued by the bank concerned. The complainant was forced to remit the bill through cash by threatening that if he does not make the cash payment, his electricity connection would be disconnected on 14/2/2003. Due to the said fear on 14/2/2003 itself the complainant remitted cash of Rs.2,685/- with fine of Rs.75/-. The conduct of the 2^nd opposite party by receiving in the cheque for Rs.2,685/- on the day of remitting the money without fine and returned the same on another day (14/2/2003) and asked the complainant to pay the bill amount with fine is unjust. Hence this complaint to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.150/-.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, that the Secretary, KSEB is not made a party, that the complainant is not prompt in payment of current charges, that the complainant presented the cheque on 13/2/2003 in the billing section, which was accepted in good faith, that there was heavy rush because 13^th February was the last date for payment without fine, that usually the cheque was accepted without knowledge that it was a non MICR cheque, and that the defect was noticed when it taken up for accounting. The opposite parties contacted the Manager of SBT and requested to accept the cheque. But the Manager replied that as per circular dated 10/1/2003 issued by Reserve Bank of India, non MICR cheques are not accepted. So the cheque was returned from collection. Opposite parties returned the cheque through a special messenger with a bonafide intention to enable the complainant to present MICR cheque on that day itself. If complainant issued a MICR cheque on 13/2/2003, he could avoid the penal charges. Opposite parties are liable to charge fine for all payments after due dates. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit.

5. Points (i) & (ii): The case of the complainant is that on 6/2/2003, the KSEB had issued a bill for Rs.2,685/- to consumer No.1374 for the period from 6/12/2002 to 6/2/2003, and that the due date for remitting the bill without fine was on 13/2/2003 and the last date for remitting the bill before the disconnection of the electricity supply was on 20/2/2003. Submission by the complainant is that he had issued a crossed cheque of Ananthapuram Co-operative Society Ltd., Kaithamukku bearing cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 for Rs.2,685/- as payment for the electricity bill on 13/2/2003, that the 2^nd opposite party issued a slip of paper with seal stating that “The cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 is rejected and returned back from the bank since the same belongs to Co-operative Society. Hence the cheque is returned herewith”. Complainant says actually the said cheque was not presented for collection by the KSEB, and no “cheque return memo” was issued by the concerned bank and he was forced to remit the bill through cash on 14/2/2003. Ext.P1 is the bill dated 6/2/2003. As per Ext.P1 the last date of remitting the bill without fine is 13/2/2003 and the last date of remitting with fine is 20/2/2003. Ext.P2 is the cheque for Rs.2,685/- dated 12/2/2003 of the Ananthapuram co-operative Society Ltd. Ext.P3 is the slip issued by Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Pettah to consumer No. 1374.

6. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that complainant was not prompt in payment of current charges; that complainant presented the cheque on 13/2/2003 in the billing section, that the cheque was accepted in good faith, that there was heavy rush because 13^th was the last date for payment without fine, that the cheque was accepted without knowledge that it was a non MICR cheque, and that the defect was noticed when it taken up for accounting. Opposite parties submit when they contacted the Branch Manager of the SBT, Pettah to accept the cheque, the Manager replied that as per circular dated 10/1/2003 issued by the RBI, non MICR cheques are not acceptable and the said cheque was returned from collection and that the same was returned to complainant through a special messenger with a bonafide intention to enable the complainant to present the MICR cheque on that day itself. Complainant did not present MICR cheque on 13/2/2003 thereby fine was imposed. Further opposite parties says that complainant present the non MICR cheque on 13/2/2003 after the normal office time. Complainant admits that he remitted amount on 14/2/2003. As per Ext.P1, the last date of payment without fine was on 13/2/2003. There is no dispute regarding the bill amount eventhough the said cheque was dated 12/2/2003, opposite parties submit the complainant presented the same on 13/2/2003, the last date for payment without fine. It is admitted by the complainant that the said cheque was not encashed by opposite parties, that means the bill amount was not remitted on 13/2/2003, complainant says the bill amount was remitted on 14/2/2003. Since the bill amount was seen remitted after 13/2/2003, complainant is liable to remit the fine amount as claimed by the opposite party. Opposite party has stated the reason for return of the said cheque. Complainant never furnished any material to prove otherwise. The burden is on the part of the complainant to prove that opposite party has acted against provisions of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the light of evidence available on records, we find there is no case to attribute any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of June, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.71/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Demand and Disconnection notice dated 6/2/2003 bill No.D 22971 for Rs.2,685/- issued by opposite party.

P2 : Original cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 for Rs.2,685/- in the name of KSEB

P3 : Original slip of paper issued by the 2^nd opp. Party

P4 : Original receipt dated 14/2/2003 for Rs.2,760/-

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT

ad.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No.71/2003

Dated: 30..06..2009

Complainant:

V. Muraleedharan Nair, Lekshmi Rengam, Mudavoorppara, Balaramapuram, Proprietor, Kailas Computers and Communications, T.C.27/1896, Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram-35.

(By adv. V. Bhuvanendran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. K.S.E.B represented by its Assistant Executive Engineer, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. M. Manikantan)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 09..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.1374, that the complainant is always prompt and regular in remitting the electricity charge without making any default, that the complainant normally makes the payment through cheque for remitting electricity charges, and that on 6/2/2003 opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.2,685/- to the consumer, the due date for remitting the said bill amount without fine was on 13/2/2003 and the last date for remitting the bill before disconnection of the electricity supply is 20/2/2003. Complainant issued a crossed cheque of Ananthapuram Co-operative Society Ltd., Kaithamukku dated 12/2/2003 for Rs. 2,685/- as payment for the electricity bill on 13/2/2003. Opposite parties issued a slip of paper with seal stating that “The cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 is rejected and returned back from the bank since the same belongs to Co-operative Society. Hence the cheque is returned herewith”. Actually the cheque was not presented for collection by KSEB and no Cheque Return Memo was issued by the bank concerned. The complainant was forced to remit the bill through cash by threatening that if he does not make the cash payment, his electricity connection would be disconnected on 14/2/2003. Due to the said fear on 14/2/2003 itself the complainant remitted cash of Rs.2,685/- with fine of Rs.75/-. The conduct of the 2^nd opposite party by receiving in the cheque for Rs.2,685/- on the day of remitting the money without fine and returned the same on another day (14/2/2003) and asked the complainant to pay the bill amount with fine is unjust. Hence this complaint to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.150/-.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, that the Secretary, KSEB is not made a party, that the complainant is not prompt in payment of current charges, that the complainant presented the cheque on 13/2/2003 in the billing section, which was accepted in good faith, that there was heavy rush because 13^th February was the last date for payment without fine, that usually the cheque was accepted without knowledge that it was a non MICR cheque, and that the defect was noticed when it taken up for accounting. The opposite parties contacted the Manager of SBT and requested to accept the cheque. But the Manager replied that as per circular dated 10/1/2003 issued by Reserve Bank of India, non MICR cheques are not accepted. So the cheque was returned from collection. Opposite parties returned the cheque through a special messenger with a bonafide intention to enable the complainant to present MICR cheque on that day itself. If complainant issued a MICR cheque on 13/2/2003, he could avoid the penal charges. Opposite parties are liable to charge fine for all payments after due dates. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

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

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed affidavit.

5. Points (i) & (ii): The case of the complainant is that on 6/2/2003, the KSEB had issued a bill for Rs.2,685/- to consumer No.1374 for the period from 6/12/2002 to 6/2/2003, and that the due date for remitting the bill without fine was on 13/2/2003 and the last date for remitting the bill before the disconnection of the electricity supply was on 20/2/2003. Submission by the complainant is that he had issued a crossed cheque of Ananthapuram Co-operative Society Ltd., Kaithamukku bearing cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 for Rs.2,685/- as payment for the electricity bill on 13/2/2003, that the 2^nd opposite party issued a slip of paper with seal stating that “The cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 is rejected and returned back from the bank since the same belongs to Co-operative Society. Hence the cheque is returned herewith”. Complainant says actually the said cheque was not presented for collection by the KSEB, and no “cheque return memo” was issued by the concerned bank and he was forced to remit the bill through cash on 14/2/2003. Ext.P1 is the bill dated 6/2/2003. As per Ext.P1 the last date of remitting the bill without fine is 13/2/2003 and the last date of remitting with fine is 20/2/2003. Ext.P2 is the cheque for Rs.2,685/- dated 12/2/2003 of the Ananthapuram co-operative Society Ltd. Ext.P3 is the slip issued by Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Pettah to consumer No. 1374.

6. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that complainant was not prompt in payment of current charges; that complainant presented the cheque on 13/2/2003 in the billing section, that the cheque was accepted in good faith, that there was heavy rush because 13^th was the last date for payment without fine, that the cheque was accepted without knowledge that it was a non MICR cheque, and that the defect was noticed when it taken up for accounting. Opposite parties submit when they contacted the Branch Manager of the SBT, Pettah to accept the cheque, the Manager replied that as per circular dated 10/1/2003 issued by the RBI, non MICR cheques are not acceptable and the said cheque was returned from collection and that the same was returned to complainant through a special messenger with a bonafide intention to enable the complainant to present the MICR cheque on that day itself. Complainant did not present MICR cheque on 13/2/2003 thereby fine was imposed. Further opposite parties says that complainant present the non MICR cheque on 13/2/2003 after the normal office time. Complainant admits that he remitted amount on 14/2/2003. As per Ext.P1, the last date of payment without fine was on 13/2/2003. There is no dispute regarding the bill amount eventhough the said cheque was dated 12/2/2003, opposite parties submit the complainant presented the same on 13/2/2003, the last date for payment without fine. It is admitted by the complainant that the said cheque was not encashed by opposite parties, that means the bill amount was not remitted on 13/2/2003, complainant says the bill amount was remitted on 14/2/2003. Since the bill amount was seen remitted after 13/2/2003, complainant is liable to remit the fine amount as claimed by the opposite party. Opposite party has stated the reason for return of the said cheque. Complainant never furnished any material to prove otherwise. The burden is on the part of the complainant to prove that opposite party has acted against provisions of the Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, and in the light of evidence available on records, we find there is no case to attribute any deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Deficiency in service not proved. Complaint has no substance which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of June, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.71/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Demand and Disconnection notice dated 6/2/2003 bill No.D 22971 for Rs.2,685/- issued by opposite party.

P2 : Original cheque No.4733 dated 12/2/2003 for Rs.2,685/- in the name of KSEB

P3 : Original slip of paper issued by the 2^nd opp. Party

P4 : Original receipt dated 14/2/2003 for Rs.2,760/-

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL

PRESIDENT