IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 25^th day of February, 2010

Filed on 28.11.08

Present

1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)

in

C.C.No.289/08

between

Complainant:-                                             Opposite Parties:-

Sri.Gangadharan,                                        1.         The Secretary,

S/o Madhavan,                                                       Kerala State Vaidyuthi Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,

Ward No.VIII, No.270,                                         Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

Puthanpurackal,

Thottappally Muryil,                                    2.         The Executive Engineer,

Purakkad Panchayath,                                            Electrical Division Office,

Ambalappuzha Thaluk.                                           Alappuzha – 688 007.                         

(By Adv.S.A.Sreemon)     

                                                                  3.         The Asst.Engineer,

                                                                              Electrical Section Office, Ambalappuzha.

                                                          O R D E R

SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)

The complainant case is as follows: - The complainant is the consumer bearing No.505017225 of the opposite parties. The average consumption of electric energy by the complainant was 70 units. The complainant, since 1985 was remitting the energy charges without any default. Of late the 3^rd opposite party was issuing bills to the complainant recording therein 'meter not readable'. The meter remained in the same spot where it was affixed in 1995. The complainant enquired the reason for the strange bill to the opposite parties, directly and otherwise. The opposite parties did not take any steps to address the complainant's grievance. Instead the complainant was required to remit 13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand only) with the opposite parties. The complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite parties on 29^th September 2008. The opposite parties not only took any steps on the complaint, but issued another bill dated 30^th November 2008 for an amount of Rs.14,611.43/- (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred and eleven and forty three paisa only) to the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay off the said amount. The amount arrived on in the said bill is without any basis. The complainant apprehends a possible severing of energy connection by the opposite parties. The service of the opposite party is deficient. Got aggrieved on this, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.

1. On notices being sent the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the opposite parties' contention is that the complainant constructed a new building in front of the wall wherein the meter in question was fixed. The said building stood very close to the meter, and there was little gap in between the walls to examine the reading of the meter. As such the meter reading was available only up to 1/2004. Thereafter up to 5/2008 the bill was issued on the basis of the average consumption by the complainant viz.70units. In 7/2008 the opposite parties learned that the complainant was using excess energy and the bill amounting to Rs.14,611.43/- (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred and eleven and forty three paisa only) was issued. On the complaint of the complainant the bill amount was reduced to Rs.6,560/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred and sixty only) by spreading the recorded consumption to entire average consumption. Thus, according to the opposite parties, there was no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant is disentitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost, the opposite parties assert.

2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant's son as PW1, and the documents Exbts Al to A3 were marked. On the opposite parties' side its Asst. Engineer was examined as RWl, and the documents Exbts B1 to B2 were marked.

3. Taking into consideration the contentions of the parties the issues come up before us for consideration are:-

1) Whether the bill issued by the opposite parties is sustainable?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

4. The complainant case is that the complainant was paying off the bill without fail. All on a sudden the opposite parties commenced to issue bill stating therein 'meter not readable'. We analyze the materials put on record by the complainant and the opposite parties. It appears that the opposite parties issued such bill since 2004 to 2008. The opposite parties' version is that the complainant put up a new building very close to the meter which inconvenienced the proper reading of the meter. It is worthy of notice that RWl when was cross examined admitted in the box that all these years the opposite parties had not adopted any steps to get the meter properly read. It goes without saying that it is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties to take appropriate steps if its consumers put up any obstacle which cause inconvenience to the meter reading. Admittedly the opposite parties have not moved towards that point. Yet worthier to notice that the opposite parties adduced no evidence to show before us that the space between, the two walls wherein in one of them the meter was installed was too little to read the meter. Stranger still the opposite parties in the version brought down the bill amount from Rs.14,611.43/- (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred and eleven and forty three paisa only) to Rs.6,560/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred and sixty only). The reasoning the opposite parties tendered for this deduction appears rather unnatural. For Rs.6,560/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred and sixty only), it is to be seen that the opposite parties haven't issued any demand notice or bill. In view of what have been elaborated we hold that the version advanced by the opposite parties does not worth acceptance. On the other hand the complainant case, at the first blush itself appears plausible. Apparently, the complainant let in sufficient materials to support and substantiate the same. We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to relief.

For the forgoing facts and findings herein above, the interim order already passed in the present case is made absolute. We further hold that the bill dated 3^rd November 2008 bearing No.55050248174 for an amount of Rs.14,611.43/- (Rupees fourteen thousand six hundred and eleven and forty three paisa) issued by the opposite parties to the complainant stands cancelled. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant as cost.

The complaint is allowed accordingly.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25^th day of February, 2010.

                                                                                                Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah

Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan

Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi 

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                -           Biju.G (Witness)

Ext. A1            -           The Electricity Bill No.R55050248174 dated, 03.11.2008

Ext. A2            -           The copy of the Letter issued to the opposite party dated, 29.09.2008

Ext. A3            -           The Acknowledgment Card

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1                -           V.Sasidharan Nair (Witness)

Ext. B1 -           The copy of the Form No.6 and 4

Ext. B2 -           The copy of the Agreement for the Supply of Energy 

// True Copy //

                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                   Senior Superintendent

To

            Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.

Typed by:- k.x/-   

Compared by:-