CC Filed on 28.03.2011
Disposed on 26.11.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 26th day of November 2011
PRESENT:
HONORABLE T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH, President.
HONORABLE T.NAGARAJA, Member.
HONORABLE K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 91/2011
Between:
Smt. Parvathamma, W/o. C. Narayanaswamy, Tamaka Village, Kolar Taluk and District. (By Advocate Sri. T.R. Jayaram ) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.), BESCOM, Urban Sub-Division, Kolar. 2. The Superintendent Engineer, BESCOM, M.B. Road, Kolar. (By Advocate Smt. B.S. Vijaya Kumari) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDER
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant contends that she has obtained electric connection from the Opposite Party to run industry and electric meter bearing No. KP2835 was installed by the Opposite Party and Opposite Party was regularly issuing the electricity bills and the complainant was paying the bills amount regularly. On 20.01.2011 the officials of Opposite Party have disconnected the power connection without giving any reasonable and sufficient explanation. The Opposite Party authorities have issued a bill stating that the complainant having balance amount of Rs.2,11,834/- towards back billing charges, but the complainant had paid the entire bills and she has to pay only the last bill charge of Rs.36,000/-. Due to disconnection of electricity supply the functioning of the factory has been stopped and complainant has been put to loss. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party to give electricity connection to the complainant’s manufacturing unit and direct the Opposite Party to pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/-.
2. The Opposite Party filed its version and admitted about giving electricity supply to the complainant, about issuing the bills regularly and the bills to be made to the complainant, etc., The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Testing Department of the Opposite Party inspected the meter installed in the premises of the complainant on 19.07.2010 and it was observed that the meter was running slowly by 31.81%, hence that meter was replaced on 22.01.2011 and at this time meter reading recorded properly, hence back billing charge was claimed against the complainant. Because of the default in paying electricity charges, electricity supply has been disconnected and it is due to the fault of the complainant herself. It is alleged that under the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission code 2000-01, any customer who is aggrieved by the bills issued by the Opposite Party, can file Appeal to the Appellate Authority prescribed in Sec- 44.00 of the KERC code 2000-01. Hence this complaint is not maintainable and there is no consumer dispute, hence the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The points that arise for our consideration are:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved the alleged
deficiency in service by the OP?
Point No.2: To what order?
4. Our findings to these points are as hereunder:
1. Negative
2. As per final order.
R E A S O N S
5. POINT NO.1: In our opinion there is no deficiency in service for the following reason: It is admitted fact that the complainant was using electricity and the Opposite Party was issuing the electricity bills and the complainant was paying the bill amount. On 19.07.2010 the Opposite Party inspected the premises and found that the meter was running slowly and because of it they have fixed back billing charges as per the rules and regulations and claimed Rs.2,11,834/-. It is not the case of the complainant that he has paid this amount which was claimed by the Opposite Party. The complainant vaguely states that he was only due for Rs.36,000/- and he does not specifically plead whether he has paid this back billing charges. It is pertinent to note that complainant does not challenge the correctness of the back billing charges claimed by the Opposite Party. The complainant even does not contend that Opposite Party had no authority to inspect the meter and to issue back billing in case of meter running slowly, etc., The complainant only states that without any reasonable and sufficient explanation they have issued the bill. In this way the complainant does not challenge the authority of the Opposite Party in issuing the bills, as the meter was running slowly and even he does not challenge the correctness of the billing. Hence it is clear that Opposite Party has issued the bills as per the procedure and when the bill amount was not paid, the Opposite Party has disconnected the electricity supply. Hence it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service. Hence this point is held against the Opposite Party.
6. POINT NO.2: In view of the finding on point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 26th day of November 2011.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
