- IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 15.4.2009
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.158/2009
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K.K. Sahadevan 1. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Kandachanthara House K.S.E.B., Mancompu
Pallom P.O., Kottayam Dt. Thekkekkara P.O., Alappuzha
(By Adv. K.V. Babu)
2. The Executive Engineer
KSEB., Electrical Division
Alappuzha
3. The District Collector
Civil Station, Alappuzha
4. The Village Officer, Village Office
Kunnumma Village Office
Kuttanad
(By Adv. A.Anilkumar)
5. The Secretary, KSEB
Vaidhyuthi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 29.7.2011 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was a consumer of the first opposite party and he was allotted consumer No.2332 and for domestic purpose in his house. During August, 2006 due to heavy rain and wind, the roof of the building guttered in and hence due to the presence of the line wire and watt hour meter on the walls of the building the complainant could not demolish the damaged building and hence he requested many times to the office of the first opposite party, but was neglected and hence he made the request in writing on 22.9.2006. On receipt of the request in writing the first opposite party had directed to disconnect the power connection and accordingly the power connection was disconnected in September 2006 itself. However, the energy meter was not removed and hence, the complainant was constrained not to remove the debris, but to remain there to ruin and had suffered great loss and mental agony. At the time of request in writing made to the first opposite party for disconnection, the complainant had cleared all dues up to September 2006 and hence the opposite party had no right to claim any other dues after the disconnection is effected. Now opposite parties 1 and 2 had initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant through opposite parties 3 and 4 for realizing arrears due from him in 2005. The complainant swears that there is no chance for any dues or arrears as he had remitted all dues before effecting disconnection as per his request dated 22.9.2006 and hence the present proceedings for recovery of Rs.1052/- is absolutely false, baseless and illegal. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The service connection of the complainant was disconnected due to long pending arrear from 4/05 onwards and not as per the request of the complainant.As arrear is pending, Revenue Recovery Proceedings is started.Arrear notice issued to clear the arrear on 20.8.2006 for the period 4/05 to 6/06.The service connection was dismantled on 10.11.2006.The complainant was issued a registered notice, directing to clear the arrears.But complainant did not turn up to remit the dues.Hence RR proceedings were initiated.The premises of the complainant was locked up 2/2005 onwards as per the meter reading register and no consumption was recorded.So the opposite party charged minimum current charges only.Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite parties.
-
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5.According to the complainant, as per the request made in writing on 22.9.2006, the first opposite party had directed to disconnect and accordingly the power connection was disconnected in September, 2006 itself.Complainant had also cleared all dues up to September, 2006 while giving request for disconnection.But the opposite parties initiated Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant for realizing arrears due from him in 2006.Since he had remitted all dues before effecting disconnection as per his request dated 22.9.2006, the opposite parties had no right to initiate Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant.But opposite party stated that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the long pending arrears from 4/05 onwards as per their normal procedure and not as per the request of the complainant.As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, “Where any person neglectsto pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply transmission the licensee or the generating company may after giving not less than 15 clear days notice in writing to such person and without prejudice to his right to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the supply of the electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect any electric supply line.”In the instant case, if the service connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the long pending arrears as alleged by the opposite parties, no evidence adduced in order to prove that that they had effected disconnection after giving notice in writing stating the reasons to the complainant.Hence the contention of the opposite party that the service connection of the complainant was disconnected due to the long pending arrears from 4/05 onwards is not sustainable.More over in Ext.A5 the letter issued by the complainant to the Asst. Executive Engineer, it is categorically stated that the complainant had remitted one month dues in advance and disconnection was effected without removing the meter.In order to discredit this allegation of the complainant no evidence produced by the opposite party.Hence we are of opinion that the disconnection was effected after taking all the dues amount from the complainant.In the version opposite party admitted that the premises of the complainant was locked up from 2/05 onwards as per the meter reading register, no consumption was recorded.So it is clear from the version that the complainant had not availed service connection from 2/05 onwards.If the meter was not removed after the power connection was disconnected, it was only due to the willful latches or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.From the above discussion, it is clear that the electricity supply of the complainant was disconnected from September, 2006 onwards, after realizing all the dues and the amount in advance till October, 2006.If there was any amount is due from the complainant, opposite party should have initiate proceedings to realize it from the complainant at the earliest after it was disconnected.As per Section 56 (2), “No sum due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due.”In this case Ext.A1 demand notice was issued on 25.4.2008 for the arrears from 2005 to 2006.As per Section 56(2) opposite party has no right to issue such demand notice after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due.Hence we are of opinion that opposite parties 1 and 2 have no right to initiate Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant through opposite parties 3 and 4.The above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The notice dated 25.04.2008 is set aside. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The primary relief is granted, no order as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.K. Sahadevan (Witness)
Ext.A1-Copy of the Demand Notice
Ext.A2-Copy of the Consumer Card
Ext.A3-Copy of the application dated 22.9.2006
Ext.A4-Copy of the Postal receipt
Ext.A5-Copy of the application dated 9.2.2007
Ext.A6-Copy of the Postal receipt
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1- Copy of meter reading Register
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
