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. 77/2003 Filed on 21/02/2003 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainants: 1. Consumer Vigilance Centre (CVC) Sreekovil, Kodunganoor-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. 2. R.K. Shyamala, Kollazaikom House, Chiramoola, Kadakkavoor – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties: The Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Kadakkavoor, Thiruvananthapuram. The Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(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 29..07..2005, 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 2nd complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.5751, that the said connection is for agricultural purpose, that the 2nd complainant had paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties and there is no pending bills to be paid by her. 2nd Complainant was served with a bill dated nil for Rs. 4,526/-. In the said bill the dues from 10/95 to 11/2000 is Rs.1,175/- and surcharge upto 1/03 comes to Rs.3,051/-. The said bill with huge penalty is illegal, arbitrary and is made without any basis. Asking to pay the dues with huge interest after a long lapse of 8 years is against the provisions of law prevailing in the slab. Penalising the complainant for the fault of the opposite party is unfair trade practice which means deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to quash the bills for Rs.4,526/- and to realise compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer has remitted the current charges as per the spot bill from 1/01 onwards, that the consumer is a defaulter of current charges as per Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 10/95 to 11/2000, that by oversight the opposite parties could not locate this consumer for non-payment of current charges upto 11/2000 and that the consumer was finally located as per the special drive made from the Electrical Section concerned in connection with old arrears realisation. It is the responsibility of the consumer to remit the monthly current charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card. Being a defaulter of current charges the consumer is liable to pay sur-charge. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill (B6/7) for Rs. 4,526/- cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the 2nd complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount? Whether the 2nd complainant is entitled to get cost? If so, at what amount?
4. In support of the complaint, 2nd complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. 2nd complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed affidavit only. Opposite parties did not file documents in support of the version.
5. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, 2nd complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.5751. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid connection is for agriculural purpose. Submission by the 2nd complainant is that she has paid all the current bills which served to her and there is no pending bills to be paid by her. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 10/1/2003 for Rs.41/- issued by opposite parties. Complainant did not produce the receipt concerned showing the payment of the said bill. Ext.P1 is the copy of the arrear bill for Rs.4,526/-. As per Ext.P1, 2nd complainant was directed to remit the said amount before 25/1/2003. In the said Ext.P1, it is seen recorded that "arrear amount for current charges from 10/95 to 11/2000 is Rs.1,475/- plus S/C upto 1/03 is Rs.3,051/-". It is seen admitted by opposite parties in their affidavit that the 2nd complainant has remitted current charge as per spot bill from 1/01 onwards. Submission by the 1st opposite party is that the 2nd complainant is a defaulter of current charges as per Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 10/95 to 11/2000. 2nd Complainant did not furnish the Provisional Invoice Card nor did she furnish any other documents to show that she is not a defaulter, nor did the complainant deny the issuance of provisional invoice card. In the absence of any documents in support of the payment of current charges, we are of the view that 2nd complainant is a defaulter. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P1 demand for Rs. 4,526/- including arrears of current charge of Rs. 1,475/- from 10/95 to 11/2000 plus S/C of Rs.3,051/-. Opposite parties did not issue timely demand notice to the complainant during the said period from 10/95 to 11/2000 for the payment of current charge. Opposite parties also have not acted as per provision of the Electricity Act & Regulation thereof. It is contended by opposite parties that due to oversight, they could not locate the consumer for non-payment of current charges upto 11/2000, that they could finally locate the consumer only on 5/1/2003 as per 'special drive'. It is to be noted that opposite parties have admitted the issuance of spot bill from 1/2001 onwards and remittance of the same by the complainant. Ext.P1 bill is seen issued two years after the introduction of spot billing. The action of the opposite parties is against the Provisions Regulations relating to supply of Electrical Energy. Opposite parties have not acted in time to issue demand notice for realisation of arrear amount from the complainant. Since delay in issuance of demand notice was due to opposite parties' own act it is not just and proper to direct the 2nd complainant to pay any sur-charge on arrear amount as stated in Ext.P1. At the same time it is required to be highlighted the responsibility of the consumer to remit the monthly current charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card. Evidently, there is no material on record to show that 2nd complainant had remitted current charge prior to the introduction of spot billing. Consumer cannot be allowed to escape from remittance of current charge under the pretext that opposite parties have not issued timely demand notice. 2nd complainant has no case that she has not used electrical energy from the opposite parties during the said period from 10/95 to 11/2000. As per Ext.P1, the current charge per month from 10/95 to 2/97 is at the rate of Rs.10/-, which rose to Rs.29/- per month from 3/97 to 11/2000. The 2nd complainant is liable to remit the current charge during the said period. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of evidence available on record, we think justice will be well met if the 2nd complainant is allowed to remit only the current charge of Rs. 1,475/-. 2nd complainant is not liable to remit S/C of Rs. 3051/-as claimed in Ext.P1 since it was not due to the fault of the 2nd complainant.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The surcharge of Rs.3,051/- (Rupees Three thousand and fiftyone only) claimed by the 1st opposite party as per Ext.P1 (B6/7 dated Nil) is hereby cancelled, whereas the 2nd complainant shall pay the arrear amount of Rs.1,475/- (Rupees One thousand four hundred and seventyfive only) as per Ext.P1 to the 1st opposite party. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. 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 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.77/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainants' witness: NIL II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Copy of letter No.B6/7 dated 25/1/2003 issued to the complainants by opposite party. P2 : Copy of demand and disconnection notice dated 10/1/2003. P3 : Copy of letter No.CVC/07/51/03 dated 18/2/2003 issued to opposite party by the complainant. P4 : Copy of letter dated 20/11/2002 issued to the complainant by opposite party. P5 : Copy of letter No.BB/con/03 dated 7/03/2003.
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. 77/2003 Filed on 21/02/2003 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainants: 1. Consumer Vigilance Centre (CVC) Sreekovil, Kodunganoor-P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 013. 2. R.K. Shyamala, Kollazaikom House, Chiramoola, Kadakkavoor – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties: The Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Kadakkavoor, Thiruvananthapuram. The Secretary, KSEB., Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(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 29..07..2005, 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 2nd complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.5751, that the said connection is for agricultural purpose, that the 2nd complainant had paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties and there is no pending bills to be paid by her. 2nd Complainant was served with a bill dated nil for Rs. 4,526/-. In the said bill the dues from 10/95 to 11/2000 is Rs.1,175/- and surcharge upto 1/03 comes to Rs.3,051/-. The said bill with huge penalty is illegal, arbitrary and is made without any basis. Asking to pay the dues with huge interest after a long lapse of 8 years is against the provisions of law prevailing in the slab. Penalising the complainant for the fault of the opposite party is unfair trade practice which means deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to quash the bills for Rs.4,526/- and to realise compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the consumer has remitted the current charges as per the spot bill from 1/01 onwards, that the consumer is a defaulter of current charges as per Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 10/95 to 11/2000, that by oversight the opposite parties could not locate this consumer for non-payment of current charges upto 11/2000 and that the consumer was finally located as per the special drive made from the Electrical Section concerned in connection with old arrears realisation. It is the responsibility of the consumer to remit the monthly current charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card. Being a defaulter of current charges the consumer is liable to pay sur-charge. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the bill (B6/7) for Rs. 4,526/- cancelled? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the 2nd complainant is entitled to get compensation? If so, at what amount? Whether the 2nd complainant is entitled to get cost? If so, at what amount?
4. In support of the complaint, 2nd complainant has filed an affidavit of herself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. 2nd complainant has not been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, 1st opposite party has filed affidavit only. Opposite parties did not file documents in support of the version.
5. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, 2nd complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.5751. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid connection is for agriculural purpose. Submission by the 2nd complainant is that she has paid all the current bills which served to her and there is no pending bills to be paid by her. Ext.P2 is the copy of the bill dated 10/1/2003 for Rs.41/- issued by opposite parties. Complainant did not produce the receipt concerned showing the payment of the said bill. Ext.P1 is the copy of the arrear bill for Rs.4,526/-. As per Ext.P1, 2nd complainant was directed to remit the said amount before 25/1/2003. In the said Ext.P1, it is seen recorded that "arrear amount for current charges from 10/95 to 11/2000 is Rs.1,475/- plus S/C upto 1/03 is Rs.3,051/-". It is seen admitted by opposite parties in their affidavit that the 2nd complainant has remitted current charge as per spot bill from 1/01 onwards. Submission by the 1st opposite party is that the 2nd complainant is a defaulter of current charges as per Provisional Invoice Card for the period from 10/95 to 11/2000. 2nd Complainant did not furnish the Provisional Invoice Card nor did she furnish any other documents to show that she is not a defaulter, nor did the complainant deny the issuance of provisional invoice card. In the absence of any documents in support of the payment of current charges, we are of the view that 2nd complainant is a defaulter. It is pertinent to note that Ext.P1 demand for Rs. 4,526/- including arrears of current charge of Rs. 1,475/- from 10/95 to 11/2000 plus S/C of Rs.3,051/-. Opposite parties did not issue timely demand notice to the complainant during the said period from 10/95 to 11/2000 for the payment of current charge. Opposite parties also have not acted as per provision of the Electricity Act & Regulation thereof. It is contended by opposite parties that due to oversight, they could not locate the consumer for non-payment of current charges upto 11/2000, that they could finally locate the consumer only on 5/1/2003 as per 'special drive'. It is to be noted that opposite parties have admitted the issuance of spot bill from 1/2001 onwards and remittance of the same by the complainant. Ext.P1 bill is seen issued two years after the introduction of spot billing. The action of the opposite parties is against the Provisions Regulations relating to supply of Electrical Energy. Opposite parties have not acted in time to issue demand notice for realisation of arrear amount from the complainant. Since delay in issuance of demand notice was due to opposite parties' own act it is not just and proper to direct the 2nd complainant to pay any sur-charge on arrear amount as stated in Ext.P1. At the same time it is required to be highlighted the responsibility of the consumer to remit the monthly current charge as per the Provisional Invoice Card. Evidently, there is no material on record to show that 2nd complainant had remitted current charge prior to the introduction of spot billing. Consumer cannot be allowed to escape from remittance of current charge under the pretext that opposite parties have not issued timely demand notice. 2nd complainant has no case that she has not used electrical energy from the opposite parties during the said period from 10/95 to 11/2000. As per Ext.P1, the current charge per month from 10/95 to 2/97 is at the rate of Rs.10/-, which rose to Rs.29/- per month from 3/97 to 11/2000. The 2nd complainant is liable to remit the current charge during the said period. In view of the aforesaid discussion and in the light of evidence available on record, we think justice will be well met if the 2nd complainant is allowed to remit only the current charge of Rs. 1,475/-. 2nd complainant is not liable to remit S/C of Rs. 3051/-as claimed in Ext.P1 since it was not due to the fault of the 2nd complainant.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The surcharge of Rs.3,051/- (Rupees Three thousand and fiftyone only) claimed by the 1st opposite party as per Ext.P1 (B6/7 dated Nil) is hereby cancelled, whereas the 2nd complainant shall pay the arrear amount of Rs.1,475/- (Rupees One thousand four hundred and seventyfive only) as per Ext.P1 to the 1st opposite party. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. 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 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.77/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainants' witness: NIL II. Complainants' documents: P1 : Copy of letter No.B6/7 dated 25/1/2003 issued to the complainants by opposite party. P2 : Copy of demand and disconnection notice dated 10/1/2003. P3 : Copy of letter No.CVC/07/51/03 dated 18/2/2003 issued to opposite party by the complainant. P4 : Copy of letter dated 20/11/2002 issued to the complainant by opposite party. P5 : Copy of letter No.BB/con/03 dated 7/03/2003.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
