R.Vijayakumar, Member
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for quashing bill no.149642 dated: 08/06/07 issued by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.85699/- and for getting compensation Rs.5000/- and cost of proceedings.
(2)
The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows.
Three phase electrical connection bearing consumer no.19564 was granted in favour of Gopinadha Kurup for working an ICE Plant. After the death of Gopinadha Kurup, the complainants are running the ICE Plant. While so in the month of July, the meter in the ICE Plant was replaced with another one by the second opposite party without any reason. The complainant continued to remit electricity charges without any dues.
The second opposite party issued an additional bill dated 08/06/07 bearing no.149642 for an amount of Rs.85699/-. The complainant had not consumed 47974 units electricity for running the ice Plant. No defect regarding the meter reading was recorded in the meter card. The reason for giving additional bill also was not convinced to the complainant. The complainants are not liable to remit the additional bill amount. On enquiry the first opposite party explained that in the period of 01/2007 and 02/2007 there was defect in CT and the additional bill was issued the basis of average consumption. There was no defect in CT. The issuance of additional bill for an exorbitant amount caused mental pain and agonyto the complainant. The act of opposite party is deficiency in service and hence complainant filed this complaint for getting reliefs.
The opposite parties filed version contenting the allegations in the complaint. The Registration of Electric connection was not changed to the legal heirs of Gopinadhakurup and death of Gopinadhakurup was not informed the opposite parties as per Section 41 of the Terms and conditions of electric supply. The meter was found defective from July 1 and it was replaced on July 7. The electric charge for these 7 days also included in the bill. The reading was calculated on the basis of the average consumption in the previous period. Defect found in CT and it was informed to the complainant and it was replaced on 05/02/07.It was also informed to the complainants. The opposite parties issued bill only for the actual consumption of the complainants and as per section 43(3) of KSEB Terms and conditions of supply Act 2005.
(3)
The statement of the complaint that no defect in the CT meter is not true. The complainant was not supplied with an exorbitant bill. The bill was issued only after detailed enquiry and correct calculations. No mental agony is caused to the complaint. There is nothing against law and no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 and PW2 examined.Exts.P1 to P11 marked.
From the side of opposite parties DW1 and DW2 examined. Ext.D1 produced.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
1.Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
3. Compensation and cost
Point 1
The opposite parties raised the contention that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not the consumers as contemplated under section 2 (1) (d) of (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. The present complainants never bothered to execute agreement with the opposite parties.
The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complaint is maintainable as the opposite parties already admitted in the 1 para of their version itself that energy is consuming by the complainants under the consumer no.19564 of Electrical Section, Karunagappally and further in the II para that they have convinced the fact that the ice plant is conducting by the complainants.
Section 2(1) (d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act defines that consumer means any person who (hires or avails of) any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deffered payment
(4)
includes any beneficiary of service other than the person who hires or avails service for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deffered payment when such services availed of with approval of the first mentioned person. In the present case, the complainants are the legal heirs of the diseased Gopinadhakurup and the beneficiaries of service availed by Gopinadhakurup. Hence no doubt, the complainants are consumers and the complaint is maintainable in the Forum.
Points (2) and (3)
Admittedly the electric connection is still in the name of Gopinadhakurup. The first complainant is the wife and second complainant is the daughter of deceased Gopinadhakurup who was the registered consumer holding consumer no.19564 of Karunagappally North Electrical Section under LT IV commercial tariff. After the death of the registered consumer, his wife and daughter is conducting the ICE plant also is admitted.
The main issue in this case is that whether the CT meter was defective or not and the bill issued on the basis of CT meter fault is genuine or not.
According to the opposite parties an alarming decrease was found when the reading was taken on 01/02/2007 and on verification it was ascertained that one of the CT attached to the meter was faulty. A site mahassar was prepared by the Assistant Engineer who conducted the inspection and replaced the defective CT in the presence of the representatives of the complainant. A bill was issued on the basis of the average consumption for the consecutive 3 months. The bill is based on the actual consumption of energy and on the basis of the Terms and conditions of supply of energy.
According to the complainant the said additional bill is prepared based on the faulty assumptions and the complainant is not liable to pay the additional bill amount.
(5)
While in cross-examination complainant had admitted that on the basis of the inspection conducted by the electricity officials she was convinced that the CT meter was faulty. But she had raised the contention that the replacement of the meter was not convinced to her. From her deposition itself it is obvious that CT meter was faulty.
The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that D1 Mahassar is not a genuine document. Signature of the witness are seen on the reverse side of D1.But the
last lines in Ext.D1 are compactly arranged. He has further argued that from the answer given by the DW2, that it is clear that Ext.D1 is not a genuine document.
As a matter of fact there was an alarming decrease found in the consumption. This fact was not challenged by the complainant also. But they had explained that it was because of the maintenance works which was going on during that period. But the complainant had not produced any authentic evidence to prove their contention. Ext.P8 to P12, the bills and vouchers are bogus and those documents cannot be considered as authentic documents. Those documents vouchers and bills and have no relevance in this case. More over all these exhibits P8 to P12 were marked without examining parties who had issued it. It is unbelievable that the reason for alarming decrease in the consumption is the maintenance work which was going on in the factory.
Inspection was conducted by the opposite party on the basis of the alarming decrease in consumption. On inspection it was found that the CT meter was faulty. The first complainant herself admitted that she was convinced by the opposite parties that the CT meter was faulty at that time. The genuity of Ext.D1 cannot be discarded only on the basis that the last lines are compactly arranged and signature of the witness are seen on the reverse side.
On consideration of the facts, circumstances and the entire evidence before us, we are of the view that the opposite parties acted only as per the provisions of
(6)
the Act. We are of the opinion that no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the opposite parties.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There is not order as to costs.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Padmini Amma
PW2 - Omanakuttan
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Additional bill dated: 08/06/07
P2 - Premises meter card
P3 - Bill dated: 10/01/2007
P4 - Bill dated: 09/02/2007
P5 - Bill dated: 08/01/08
P6 - Bill dated: 11/02/08
P7 - Bill dated: 12/03/08
P8 - Bill dated: 16/01/07 from Friends Automobiles
P9 - Bill dated: 17/02/07 from PV Electric Centre
P10 - Bill dated: 01/02/07 from Dhannya Automobile Engineering Works
P11 - Bill dated :27/01/07 from St.Joseph Engineering Works
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Muraleedharan Pillai
DW2 - Vijayan
List of documents for the opposite party
D1 - Site mahassar
