The Executive Engineer (ele) GESCOM V/S Raghunandan, Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Paper Mart - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 52/06

Raghunandan, Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Paper Mart - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer (ele) GESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.E. Narayana Rao

10 Oct 2006

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 52/06

Raghunandan, Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Paper Mart						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Executive Engineer (ele) GESCOM Section Officer, O & M II GESCOM						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Executive Engineer Divisional Office and Section Officer O & M II, GESCOM Raichur, herein-after referred as Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant Raghunandan Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Paper Mart, Katkam Krishtayya Complex City Talkies Road Raichur, is the consumer of Respondent Company having electricity connection bearing meter RR.No. 24160 provided to his go-down measuring 10x12 Sq.feet which is adjacent to his shop in the same complex at Raichur. The nature of business of the complainant is to sell of Wedding cards, visiting cards, Paper & Printing Materials since long back. The power supplied to the go-down of the complainant is for lighting purpose and one tube light, one ceiling fan, two points are fixed in the go-down. The meter installed in the go-down is not reading properly since May-2000 and meter reading recorded during the period from May 2000 to 17-09-04 are not correct and electricity supply was disconnected on 17-09-03 without obtaining his signature on relevant documents based on disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02 issued by the Respondent which is illegal. The complainant has used electricity consumption for maximum 10 units per month since February 1996 to March 2000 which is clearly shown in the bills as he used the same whenever he wanted to take out the stocked- material from this go-down. Due to fault reading in the meter, complainant has moved applications to change the meter on 28th June, 3rd July, and 2nd December 2000 duly endorsed by the Respondents but they are silent and failed to rectify the same, even though payment of Rs. 100/- towards Meter Test Charges paid through cash bill No. 00399910 dt. 23-06-01 and report is not intimated to the complainant-consumer. The bills for the month of May & June 2000 regarding meter reading shows as 40 & 24 units respectively and in July and August 2000, meter reading shows of 150 & 100 units respectively which clearly shows the fault involved in the meter. In September 2001 new meter was fixed and supply was disconnected which comes under the deficiency in service. It is bounden duty of Respondents to rectify the excess bill issued by them and to reconnect the power supply without any delay due to negligence and deficiency in service by the Respondents. The complainant is suffering from mental agony and also entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Due to prolonging the matter by the Respondents, the complainant has moved an application on 20-07-05 with a request for reconnection of power supply by rectifying the bill which is duly served to the Respondent No-1 after failure of an assurance given by them on 21-05-05 as replacement of faulty meter by furnishing detailed report of defects involved in the meter. The cause of action arose on 20-07-05, when an application for re-connection of power supply and rectifying of heavy priced bill was given by complainant and secondly on 02-12-05 when a request letter received by the Respondents also on 21-05-05 when the officials of Respondents visited the shop of the complainant. So the complaint filed is within the period of limitation. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to rectify, heavy priced bill, to provide electricity supply to his go-down and for grant of damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with cost of proceedings. 2. The Respondent No-1 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2 dt. 19-06-06. In the written version it is contended that the complainant is not the consumer of the Respondents and there is no relation between the complainant and Respondents as such and complainant has no locus-standia to the question the claim. As per the records maintained by the Respondent Office, the RR.No. shown in the complaint i.e, RR.No. 24160 is standing in the name of one Srinivas Shetty S/o. Krishtayya Shetty and the sanction load is for commercial use. Therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any deficiency of service by the Respondents and there is no obligation casted on the Respondents. Hence the complainant is not consumer. It is denied that the meter installed at premises of registered of consumer is not reading properly since May-2000 and during May-2000 to 17-09-04 reading recorded were not correct. The supply was disconnected during February 2002 for non-payment of electricity bills arrears. The amount claimed on 19-03-02 at Rs. 4,095/- is legal and therefore the registered consumer is liable to make the payment as per bills issued. It is further denied that in July & August 2000 units of 150 & 100 shown is illegal and fault involved in the meter. It is denied that due to negligence and deficiency by the Respondents. The complainant suffered mental agony. The Respondent-Office have issued the bills whatever the consumer consumed the electricity as per the meter reading, the bill claimed is in-accordance with the provisions of law. So there is no negligence and deficiency by Respondents and there is no cause of action to file the complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of evidence and has got marked [16] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16. In-rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of Respondent NO-2 as rebuttal evidence and have got marked [7] documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration:- 1.Whether the complainant is a consumer of Respondent and thereby he is a consumer under C.P. Act? 2.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondents as alleged? 3.Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2.Needs no consideration. 3. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is contended by the Respondents that the complainant is not consumer of the Respondents and there is no such relationship so the complainant has no locus-standia to file the complaint. Further, the complainant has challenged the claim of the Respondents and in-such case he has to approach Appropriate Authority of the Respondents and exhaust remedy as contained under Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) and Karnataka Electricity Act 2003, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Respondents have relied on (7) documents viz., Test Report in-respect of bearing RR.No. 24160 installation of one K.Srinivas Shetty S/o. Krishtayya Shetty at Ex.R-1, Registration Form dt. 13-02-1991 of Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-2, Application Form for LT-3 dt. 02-07-1990 filed by said Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-3, Municipal Tax Paid Receipt of go-down No. 11-7-6/1 of said Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-4, Wiring Diagram of installation of K.Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-5, Agreement entered into between K.Srinivas Shetty and KEB dt. 12-05-1991 at Ex.R-6 and Meter Estimate Paper at Ex.R-7. On the contrary it is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of Respondents for supply of electricity to the installation meter bearing RR.No. 24160 provided to the go-down situated at Krishtayya Complex where he is running his business. The documents produced by him viz., Electricity bills at Ex.P-1 to P-7 & Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16, the Correspondence made with the Respondents at Ex.P-8 to P-11, the Meter Test Bill at Ex.R-12 and the letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 addressed to the complainant, amply show that the complainant is a consumer of Respondents and has got locus-standia to file the complaint. 7. From a close perusal of the documents produced by both the parties in the light of their pleadings, it clearly shows that even though the cause title of the complaint and the documents amply show that the complainant is running his business in K.Krishtayya shopping complex including go-down but the complainant has not whispered a single word that he is running his business in the said complex of Krishtayya as Tenant. This K.Krishtayya is the fathers name of K. Srinivas Shetty to whom electricity supply was sanctioned to the installation bearing RR.No. 24160 as reveled from documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. It is unfortunate that the complainant without disclosing his status of occupation of the installation-premises has jumped in saying that he is a consumer of Respondents under said installation. Even the complainant is not wise-enough to file any piece of document or affidavit of his Land-lord Srinivas Shetty regarding his tenancy so as to avoid unnecessary and silly complications like the present one. However from a perusal of documents produced by both the parties it shows that the complainant is running his business in the said shopping complex with a go-down for storing his business-stock where the installation bearing RR.No. 24160 is installed and thereby the complainant is a consumer of Respondents within the meaning of Consumer Code No. 2.14 of KERC since according to which A Consumer means and include any person who or whose installation is supplied with electricity or who has executed an Agreement with the Licensee for supply of electricity.. etc., and thereby the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act also. Hence this Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 8. The complainant contends that his installation Meter bearing RR.No. 24160 was not reading properly since May 2000 and the meter readings recorded during the period from May 2000 to 17-09-03 are not correct and that the electricity was illegally disconnected on 17-09-03 based on disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02 issued by Respondents which is illegal. He has further contended that he has used electricity consumption for maximum 10 units per month since February 1996 to March 2000 as shown in the bills as he used the said installation whenever he wanted to take-out the stocked materials stored in the said go-down. But, for the month of May & June 2000 the meter reading shows 40 & 24 units respectively and for the month of July & August 2000 it shows 150 & 100 units respectively which is illegal. Due to fault reading in the meter he moved for change of Meter vide three applications on 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000, 02-12-2000 duly endorsed by the Respondents. But they failed to act upon even though he had made payment of Rs. 100/- towards Meter Test charges under cash bill No. 00399910 dt. 23-06-01. However in September 2001 a new Meter was fixed but supply was disconnected on 17-09-03 without obtaining his signature on relevant documents. 9. Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are the electricity bills with receipts for the month of April-May 2000 and for May-June 2000. As stated in the complaint they show the unit of electricity consumption as 40 & 24 respectively. Ex.P-3 is the electricity bill for the month of June 2000 showing consumption of 130 units. Ex.P-4 is the electricity bill for July 2000 showing consumption of 150 units of electricity. Ex.P-5 is electricity bill for November 2000 showing the dues of Rs. 2,647/- towards consumption of electricity including interest. Ex.P-6 is another bill for September 2001 showing the electricity dues. Ex.P-7 is another bill for November 2001 showing the dues amount of Rs. 3,751/-. Ex.P-8 is the letter of the complainant to the Assistant Engineer O & M Sub-Divisional KPTCL, Raichur dt. 28-06-2000 regarding the complaint of meter fault in-respect of RR.No. 24160. Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 are the three letters of the complainant dt. 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000 & 02-12-2000 to the Assistant Engineer O & M Sub-Divisional KEB, Raichur regarding defect of meter fault and showing excess reading for the month of June 2000 vide Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4. Ex.P-12 is the payment receipt of meter test bearing No. 0039910 dt. 23-06-01. 10. From the above documents it disclose that the complainant had grievance of meter-fault and had applied for Meter Test in 2001. The complainant has not whispered a single word as to what happened to his complaint-letters made at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. But however in Para-5 of his complaint he has simply stated by single sentence that in September 2001 a new meter was fixed and supply was disconnected. So, from this sentence in Para-5 of his complaint, it clearly shows that a new meter was fixed in September 2001. But there is no whisper as to what happened or as to what was the result of his complaint-letters at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 regarding meter fault and excess billing. In the absence of the same we are not clearly able to know his allegation that on 17-09-03 electricity supply was disconnected based on the disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02. Even though the complainant has not produced this bill, however Ex.P-7 the electricity bill for November 2001 shows the dues amount of Rs. 3,751/- (after fixing of new meter in September 2001). So we failed to understand the case of the complainant in the absence of the result of his complaints of meter-fault till new meter fixed in September 2001 and as to what happened to his alleged excess billing. Under these circumstances we are unable to know his case regarding disconnection of his electricity supply on 17-09-03 as alleged by him especially when according to him a new meter was fixed in September 2001 and the electricity bill for November 2001 at Ex.P-7 shows electricity dues of Rs. 3,751/-. The complainant has not stated or whispered a single word as to whether he made complaints for the dues amount shown in electricity bill for November 2001 under Ex.P-7. But he has produced a letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 requesting for reconnection of electricity supply by referring the reply letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 at Ex.P-14. This Ex.P-14 is the Reply letter of Respondent (to the letter of complainant dt. 28-03-05) stating that when the officials of Respondents visited his shop premises (installation) and inspected the meter, it was not running and that a report will be intimated about fault involved in the meter after detailed report received by the concerned section. The letter at Ex.P-11 shows his allegation regarding excess reading of his meter & excess billing and his payment of Rs. 100/- made for Meter Test Charges vide receipt dt. 23-06-01 at Ex.P-12 and disconnection of power supply made on 17-09-03 without his fault. 11. From a close perusal of letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 it discloses that the complainant has requested the Respondent-GESCOM for reconnection of power supply disconnected on 17-09-03 without his fault. This further shows that the complainant is blowing both hot and cold at the same time. Because in the first instance he contends that his meter (earlier) was not reading properly since May 2000 and he made complaints vide letters at Ex.P-8 to P-10 and made payment of Rs. 100/- for Meter Testing Fees vide receipt at Ex.P-12 and a new meter was fixed in September 2001 as stated in Para-5 of his complaint. If this is so then his grievance or complaints came to an end in September 2001 only, by fixing new meter, especially in the absence of averments not having settled excess billing from May 2000. Even assuming for a while that the disconnection of power supply in September 2003 was illegal and improper for non-payment of alleged excess billing from May 2000 as stated in his letter at Ex.P-11, then we have no other go than to say that this complaint is barred by limitation because in this letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11, as stated supra, he has alleged that due to excess reading in the meter he had paid Rs. 100/- towards Meter Testing Charges on 23-06-01 vide Ex.P-12 for change of meter and in-spite of several requests made by him the Respondents have not done anything but have disconnected power supply on 17-09-03. This means his grievance of improper Meter reading and excess billing from May 2000 and for which he made complaint-letters and had applied for Meter Testing by making requisite fees on 23-06-01, came to an end by fixing of a new meter in September 2001 as stated in Para-5 of his complaint. It is not his case that a new meter which was fixed in September 2001, is/was also not reading properly and for that he had made complaints and applied for Meter testing. Even assuming for a while that his grievance of improper meter reading and excess billing is not settled by the Respondents even after fixing the new meter in September 2001, then also his complaint suffers from limitation as per section 24(A) of C.P.Act. It appears that for the sake of limitation, the complainant has relied on the letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 at Ex.P-14 and his request letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 regarding which we have already discussed. 12. At the cost of repetition, the complainant in Para-1 to Para-4 of his complaint has contended that due to improper reading of meter from May 2000 and excess billing he made complaint-letters on 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000 and 02-12-2000 (vide Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10) and applied for meter testing by paying Rs. 100/- towards Meter Testing charges on 23-06-01 vide Ex.P-12 and in Para-5 of this complaint he was specifically stated that a new meter was fixed in September 2001. This in-turn shows that his grievance have been settled by fixing a new meter. Hence the letter of the Respondents at Ex.P-14 to the effect that the meter was not running when they inspected the premises in-pursuance of letter of the complainant dt. 28-03-05 is with reference to new meter fixed and not the old one. In the letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 the complainant has referred the old story of defect of the meter and his making payment of Rs. 100/- on 23-06-01 etc., will not come to his rescue since the faulty meter has already been replaced by fixing a new one in September 2001 itself as per Para-5 of his complaint. So the grievance of the complainant have been set at rest in September 2001 while fixing a new meter. Even assuming that his grievance of earlier faulty-meter and excess billing etc., having not been settled and dis-connection of power supply was based on disputes bills, then also it is barred by limitation. The complaint- averments if read as a whole shows that this complaint is made with regard to the faulty meter which was replaced by a new one in September 2001 and so the grievance with regard to said old meter suffers from limitation. The complaint being vague and inconsistent had made this Forum to waste its time. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation and thereby the consideration of deficiency of service and the resulting relief as sought by the complainant involved in Point NO. 2 & 3 needs no consideration. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 10-10-06. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act against the Executive Engineer Divisional Office and Section Officer O & M II, GESCOM Raichur, herein-after referred as Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant Raghunandan Proprietor, M/s. Ganesh Paper Mart, Katkam Krishtayya Complex City Talkies Road Raichur, is the consumer of Respondent Company having electricity connection bearing meter RR.No. 24160 provided to his go-down measuring 10x12 Sq.feet which is adjacent to his shop in the same complex at Raichur. The nature of business of the complainant is to sell of Wedding cards, visiting cards, Paper & Printing Materials since long back. The power supplied to the go-down of the complainant is for lighting purpose and one tube light, one ceiling fan, two points are fixed in the go-down. The meter installed in the go-down is not reading properly since May-2000 and meter reading recorded during the period from May 2000 to 17-09-04 are not correct and electricity supply was disconnected on 17-09-03 without obtaining his signature on relevant documents based on disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02 issued by the Respondent which is illegal. The complainant has used electricity consumption for maximum 10 units per month since February 1996 to March 2000 which is clearly shown in the bills as he used the same whenever he wanted to take out the stocked- material from this go-down. Due to fault reading in the meter, complainant has moved applications to change the meter on 28th June, 3rd July, and 2nd December 2000 duly endorsed by the Respondents but they are silent and failed to rectify the same, even though payment of Rs. 100/- towards Meter Test Charges paid through cash bill No. 00399910 dt. 23-06-01 and report is not intimated to the complainant-consumer. The bills for the month of May & June 2000 regarding meter reading shows as 40 & 24 units respectively and in July and August 2000, meter reading shows of 150 & 100 units respectively which clearly shows the fault involved in the meter. In September 2001 new meter was fixed and supply was disconnected which comes under the deficiency in service. It is bounden duty of Respondents to rectify the excess bill issued by them and to reconnect the power supply without any delay due to negligence and deficiency in service by the Respondents. The complainant is suffering from mental agony and also entitled to claim damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Due to prolonging the matter by the Respondents, the complainant has moved an application on 20-07-05 with a request for reconnection of power supply by rectifying the bill which is duly served to the Respondent No-1 after failure of an assurance given by them on 21-05-05 as replacement of faulty meter by furnishing detailed report of defects involved in the meter. The cause of action arose on 20-07-05, when an application for re-connection of power supply and rectifying of heavy priced bill was given by complainant and secondly on 02-12-05 when a request letter received by the Respondents also on 21-05-05 when the officials of Respondents visited the shop of the complainant. So the complaint filed is within the period of limitation. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to rectify, heavy priced bill, to provide electricity supply to his go-down and for grant of damages of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. along with cost of proceedings. 2. The Respondent No-1 has filed written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2 dt. 19-06-06. In the written version it is contended that the complainant is not the consumer of the Respondents and there is no relation between the complainant and Respondents as such and complainant has no locus-standia to the question the claim. As per the records maintained by the Respondent Office, the RR.No. shown in the complaint i.e, RR.No. 24160 is standing in the name of one Srinivas Shetty S/o. Krishtayya Shetty and the sanction load is for commercial use. Therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any deficiency of service by the Respondents and there is no obligation casted on the Respondents. Hence the complainant is not consumer. It is denied that the meter installed at premises of registered of consumer is not reading properly since May-2000 and during May-2000 to 17-09-04 reading recorded were not correct. The supply was disconnected during February 2002 for non-payment of electricity bills arrears. The amount claimed on 19-03-02 at Rs. 4,095/- is legal and therefore the registered consumer is liable to make the payment as per bills issued. It is further denied that in July & August 2000 units of 150 & 100 shown is illegal and fault involved in the meter. It is denied that due to negligence and deficiency by the Respondents. The complainant suffered mental agony. The Respondent-Office have issued the bills whatever the consumer consumed the electricity as per the meter reading, the bill claimed is in-accordance with the provisions of law. So there is no negligence and deficiency by Respondents and there is no cause of action to file the complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of evidence and has got marked [16] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-16. In-rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of Respondent NO-2 as rebuttal evidence and have got marked [7] documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration:- 1.Whether the complainant is a consumer of Respondent and thereby he is a consumer under C.P. Act? 2.Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service by the Respondents as alleged? 3.Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1.In the affirmative. 2.Needs no consideration. 3. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. It is contended by the Respondents that the complainant is not consumer of the Respondents and there is no such relationship so the complainant has no locus-standia to file the complaint. Further, the complainant has challenged the claim of the Respondents and in-such case he has to approach Appropriate Authority of the Respondents and exhaust remedy as contained under Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) and Karnataka Electricity Act 2003, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Respondents have relied on (7) documents viz., Test Report in-respect of bearing RR.No. 24160 installation of one K.Srinivas Shetty S/o. Krishtayya Shetty at Ex.R-1, Registration Form dt. 13-02-1991 of Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-2, Application Form for LT-3 dt. 02-07-1990 filed by said Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-3, Municipal Tax Paid Receipt of go-down No. 11-7-6/1 of said Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-4, Wiring Diagram of installation of K.Srinivas Shetty at Ex.R-5, Agreement entered into between K.Srinivas Shetty and KEB dt. 12-05-1991 at Ex.R-6 and Meter Estimate Paper at Ex.R-7. On the contrary it is the case of the complainant that he is a consumer of Respondents for supply of electricity to the installation meter bearing RR.No. 24160 provided to the go-down situated at Krishtayya Complex where he is running his business. The documents produced by him viz., Electricity bills at Ex.P-1 to P-7 & Ex.P-15 & Ex.P-16, the Correspondence made with the Respondents at Ex.P-8 to P-11, the Meter Test Bill at Ex.R-12 and the letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 addressed to the complainant, amply show that the complainant is a consumer of Respondents and has got locus-standia to file the complaint. 7. From a close perusal of the documents produced by both the parties in the light of their pleadings, it clearly shows that even though the cause title of the complaint and the documents amply show that the complainant is running his business in K.Krishtayya shopping complex including go-down but the complainant has not whispered a single word that he is running his business in the said complex of Krishtayya as Tenant. This K.Krishtayya is the fathers name of K. Srinivas Shetty to whom electricity supply was sanctioned to the installation bearing RR.No. 24160 as reveled from documents at Ex.R-1 to R-7. It is unfortunate that the complainant without disclosing his status of occupation of the installation-premises has jumped in saying that he is a consumer of Respondents under said installation. Even the complainant is not wise-enough to file any piece of document or affidavit of his Land-lord Srinivas Shetty regarding his tenancy so as to avoid unnecessary and silly complications like the present one. However from a perusal of documents produced by both the parties it shows that the complainant is running his business in the said shopping complex with a go-down for storing his business-stock where the installation bearing RR.No. 24160 is installed and thereby the complainant is a consumer of Respondents within the meaning of Consumer Code No. 2.14 of KERC since according to which A Consumer means and include any person who or whose installation is supplied with electricity or who has executed an Agreement with the Licensee for supply of electricity.. etc., and thereby the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act also. Hence this Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 8. The complainant contends that his installation Meter bearing RR.No. 24160 was not reading properly since May 2000 and the meter readings recorded during the period from May 2000 to 17-09-03 are not correct and that the electricity was illegally disconnected on 17-09-03 based on disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02 issued by Respondents which is illegal. He has further contended that he has used electricity consumption for maximum 10 units per month since February 1996 to March 2000 as shown in the bills as he used the said installation whenever he wanted to take-out the stocked materials stored in the said go-down. But, for the month of May & June 2000 the meter reading shows 40 & 24 units respectively and for the month of July & August 2000 it shows 150 & 100 units respectively which is illegal. Due to fault reading in the meter he moved for change of Meter vide three applications on 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000, 02-12-2000 duly endorsed by the Respondents. But they failed to act upon even though he had made payment of Rs. 100/- towards Meter Test charges under cash bill No. 00399910 dt. 23-06-01. However in September 2001 a new Meter was fixed but supply was disconnected on 17-09-03 without obtaining his signature on relevant documents. 9. Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 are the electricity bills with receipts for the month of April-May 2000 and for May-June 2000. As stated in the complaint they show the unit of electricity consumption as 40 & 24 respectively. Ex.P-3 is the electricity bill for the month of June 2000 showing consumption of 130 units. Ex.P-4 is the electricity bill for July 2000 showing consumption of 150 units of electricity. Ex.P-5 is electricity bill for November 2000 showing the dues of Rs. 2,647/- towards consumption of electricity including interest. Ex.P-6 is another bill for September 2001 showing the electricity dues. Ex.P-7 is another bill for November 2001 showing the dues amount of Rs. 3,751/-. Ex.P-8 is the letter of the complainant to the Assistant Engineer O & M Sub-Divisional KPTCL, Raichur dt. 28-06-2000 regarding the complaint of meter fault in-respect of RR.No. 24160. Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 are the three letters of the complainant dt. 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000 & 02-12-2000 to the Assistant Engineer O & M Sub-Divisional KEB, Raichur regarding defect of meter fault and showing excess reading for the month of June 2000 vide Ex.P-3 & Ex.P-4. Ex.P-12 is the payment receipt of meter test bearing No. 0039910 dt. 23-06-01. 10. From the above documents it disclose that the complainant had grievance of meter-fault and had applied for Meter Test in 2001. The complainant has not whispered a single word as to what happened to his complaint-letters made at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. But however in Para-5 of his complaint he has simply stated by single sentence that in September 2001 a new meter was fixed and supply was disconnected. So, from this sentence in Para-5 of his complaint, it clearly shows that a new meter was fixed in September 2001. But there is no whisper as to what happened or as to what was the result of his complaint-letters at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10 regarding meter fault and excess billing. In the absence of the same we are not clearly able to know his allegation that on 17-09-03 electricity supply was disconnected based on the disputed bill amount of Rs. 4,095/- dt. 19-03-02. Even though the complainant has not produced this bill, however Ex.P-7 the electricity bill for November 2001 shows the dues amount of Rs. 3,751/- (after fixing of new meter in September 2001). So we failed to understand the case of the complainant in the absence of the result of his complaints of meter-fault till new meter fixed in September 2001 and as to what happened to his alleged excess billing. Under these circumstances we are unable to know his case regarding disconnection of his electricity supply on 17-09-03 as alleged by him especially when according to him a new meter was fixed in September 2001 and the electricity bill for November 2001 at Ex.P-7 shows electricity dues of Rs. 3,751/-. The complainant has not stated or whispered a single word as to whether he made complaints for the dues amount shown in electricity bill for November 2001 under Ex.P-7. But he has produced a letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 requesting for reconnection of electricity supply by referring the reply letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 at Ex.P-14. This Ex.P-14 is the Reply letter of Respondent (to the letter of complainant dt. 28-03-05) stating that when the officials of Respondents visited his shop premises (installation) and inspected the meter, it was not running and that a report will be intimated about fault involved in the meter after detailed report received by the concerned section. The letter at Ex.P-11 shows his allegation regarding excess reading of his meter & excess billing and his payment of Rs. 100/- made for Meter Test Charges vide receipt dt. 23-06-01 at Ex.P-12 and disconnection of power supply made on 17-09-03 without his fault. 11. From a close perusal of letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 it discloses that the complainant has requested the Respondent-GESCOM for reconnection of power supply disconnected on 17-09-03 without his fault. This further shows that the complainant is blowing both hot and cold at the same time. Because in the first instance he contends that his meter (earlier) was not reading properly since May 2000 and he made complaints vide letters at Ex.P-8 to P-10 and made payment of Rs. 100/- for Meter Testing Fees vide receipt at Ex.P-12 and a new meter was fixed in September 2001 as stated in Para-5 of his complaint. If this is so then his grievance or complaints came to an end in September 2001 only, by fixing new meter, especially in the absence of averments not having settled excess billing from May 2000. Even assuming for a while that the disconnection of power supply in September 2003 was illegal and improper for non-payment of alleged excess billing from May 2000 as stated in his letter at Ex.P-11, then we have no other go than to say that this complaint is barred by limitation because in this letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11, as stated supra, he has alleged that due to excess reading in the meter he had paid Rs. 100/- towards Meter Testing Charges on 23-06-01 vide Ex.P-12 for change of meter and in-spite of several requests made by him the Respondents have not done anything but have disconnected power supply on 17-09-03. This means his grievance of improper Meter reading and excess billing from May 2000 and for which he made complaint-letters and had applied for Meter Testing by making requisite fees on 23-06-01, came to an end by fixing of a new meter in September 2001 as stated in Para-5 of his complaint. It is not his case that a new meter which was fixed in September 2001, is/was also not reading properly and for that he had made complaints and applied for Meter testing. Even assuming for a while that his grievance of improper meter reading and excess billing is not settled by the Respondents even after fixing the new meter in September 2001, then also his complaint suffers from limitation as per section 24(A) of C.P.Act. It appears that for the sake of limitation, the complainant has relied on the letter of Respondent dt. 21-05-05 at Ex.P-14 and his request letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 regarding which we have already discussed. 12. At the cost of repetition, the complainant in Para-1 to Para-4 of his complaint has contended that due to improper reading of meter from May 2000 and excess billing he made complaint-letters on 28-06-2000, 03-07-2000 and 02-12-2000 (vide Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10) and applied for meter testing by paying Rs. 100/- towards Meter Testing charges on 23-06-01 vide Ex.P-12 and in Para-5 of this complaint he was specifically stated that a new meter was fixed in September 2001. This in-turn shows that his grievance have been settled by fixing a new meter. Hence the letter of the Respondents at Ex.P-14 to the effect that the meter was not running when they inspected the premises in-pursuance of letter of the complainant dt. 28-03-05 is with reference to new meter fixed and not the old one. In the letter dt. 20-07-05 at Ex.P-11 the complainant has referred the old story of defect of the meter and his making payment of Rs. 100/- on 23-06-01 etc., will not come to his rescue since the faulty meter has already been replaced by fixing a new one in September 2001 itself as per Para-5 of his complaint. So the grievance of the complainant have been set at rest in September 2001 while fixing a new meter. Even assuming that his grievance of earlier faulty-meter and excess billing etc., having not been settled and dis-connection of power supply was based on disputes bills, then also it is barred by limitation. The complaint- averments if read as a whole shows that this complaint is made with regard to the faulty meter which was replaced by a new one in September 2001 and so the grievance with regard to said old meter suffers from limitation. The complaint being vague and inconsistent had made this Forum to waste its time. Hence for all these reasons we hold that the complaint of the complainant is barred by limitation and thereby the consideration of deficiency of service and the resulting relief as sought by the complainant involved in Point NO. 2 & 3 needs no consideration. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 10-10-06. Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi President Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri.Pampannagouda Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Kavita Patil Member. Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.