CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.02/11
Monday the 21st day of November, 2011
Petitioner : St. Basil’s Church,
Manimala, Kottayam Dist
Rep.by its Trustee
Baby Mathew
(Adv. Roy Jose)
Vs.
Opposite party : Kerala State Electricity Board
Rep. by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Manimala.
3) Exe.Engineer,
Electrical Division,
Changancherry.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 04/01/11, is as follows:-
Petitioner is the trustee of St.Basil’s Church Manimala. Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party. On 26-6-06 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner demanding to pay a sum of Rs.24532/- towards electricity charges. The average electricity bill of the Kurisupally of the petitioner for the last so many years was below Rs. 200/- Petitioner challenged the bill by filing CC No.242/06 before the C.D.R.F. Kottayam. By its order dtd 30/10/08 C.D.R.F., Kottayam cancelled the bill. Opposite parties filed appeal against the order as FA No.33/09 before the Hon’ble CDRC. The State Commission allowed the appeal in part and directed the opposite party to confine the claim from 6/04 onwards and issue a fresh bill. In accordance with said order opposite party on 19/4/10 issued a bill for Rs.37,247/- . On 28/4/10 opposite party issued another bill demanding to pay Rs.26,870/-. Petitioner approached the 2nd opposite party and clarified about the order of Hon’ble CDRC. On 19/8/10 opposite party issued another bill demanding to pay a sum of Rs. 21,637/-. Later on 28/8/10 opposite party issued another bill for Rs.27070/-. On 30/10/10 opposite party issued a notice demanding to pay Rs.43167/- otherwise electricity connection to consumer No.1663 was disconnected from August 2006. According to the petitioner amount of bill as directed by State Commission for 24 months ought to have been Rs. 9199.50/- and from that the amount remitted during the period is to be reduced. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing an exorbitant bill, in violation of the order of Hon’ble CDRC, amounts to deficiency in service. So petitioner prays for cancellation of the bills. Petitioner also claims for a detailed monthly statement confining the claim from 6/04. He claims Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the Hon’ble State Commission disposed the appeal of the opposite party directing to confine the claim from 6/04 onwards and issue a fresh bill after deducting the amount already remitted. The averment of petitioner in para 4 of the petition is arithmetically correct. Bill dated 26/6/06 for Rs.24532/- was towards the cost of electrical energy used by the petitioner. During the past 64 months after deducting part payment by the consumer. The revised bill issued during 4/10 includes short assessment bill upto 6/06 consumption minimum charges from 6/06 to2/10 and surcharge for the delay in payment. The above bill was revised after each billing period by adding the minimum charges from 2/10 and the accumulated surcharge. According to the opposite party the bill issued is in accordance with the direction of Hon’ble State Commission further more minimum amount is to be paid by the petitioner during the period of disconnection from 8/06 to 10/10 with surcharge. The consumer is liable to pay minimum current charge. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext.A1 to A10 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
The curx of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not issued the bill in compliance of the judgement of Hon’ble CDRC in FA No.33/09 dated 1/12/09. Petitioner produced the order in FA No.33/09 same is marked as Ext.A8. In Ext.A8 Hon’ble CDRC set aside the order of this Forum in CC No.242/06 and directed the opposite party to issue bill to confine the claim from 6/04 onwards and issue fresh bill and the amount if any remitted during the period is to be reduced. Petitioner produced bill dated 19/4/10 same is marked as Ext.A1. Petitioner produced demand notice dtd 19/4/10 the same is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the bill dtd 28/4/10. Ext.A4 is the demand notice dtd 19/8/10. Ext.A5 is the bill dtd 28/8/10, Ext.A6 is the notice demanding Rs.43167/-. From Ext.A1 to A6 documents it can be seen that the demands made by the opposite party are Rs.37247/-, Rs.40252/-, Rs.26870/-, Rs.21637/-, Rs.43167/- and Rs.27070/-. So in our view opposite party has no consistence case for the amount which they demanded. Admittedly the bill dated 26/6/06 is for Rs.24532. Admittedly the said amount is a demand for 64 months. The Hon’ble State Commission directed the opposite party to confine the claim from 6/04 to 6/06. From the admission it can be seen that the average for one month is Rs.383.31. In our view act of the opposite party in demanding amounts in accordance with their whims and fancies amounts to deficiency in service. So point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 the petition is allowed.
In the result bill dated 19/4/10 and demand letter dtd 19/4/10, bill dtd 28/4/10, bill dtd 19/8/10, bill dtd 28/8/10 and notice dtd 30/10/10 are cancelled. Opposite party is directed to issue fresh bill with calculation details to the petitioner considering the average of one month of the petitioner as Rs.383.31 limiting the claim for a period from 6/04 to 6/06. Admittedly opposite party disconnected the connection of the petitioner from August 2006. Petitioner is not liable to pay any amount other than the minimum current charges (ie fixed charge and meter rent) as prescribed by the terms and conditions of Supply 2005, for disconnected period. Opposite party is not entitled for any penal charge or surcharge for the said period. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Bill No.10718 dtd 19/4/10
Ext.A2-Demand letter dtd 19/4/10
Ext.A3-Bill dtd 28//4/10
Ext.A4-Bill dtd 19//8/10
Ext.A5- bill dtd 28/8/10
Ext.A6-Demand notice dtd 30/10/10
Ext.A7-Order in CC 242/06
Ext.A8-Judgement in FA 33/09
Ext.A9-Photocopy of bill dtd 26/6/06
Ext.A10-Photocopy of bill dtd 26/8/06
Document of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Copy of order in CC246/06
Ext.B2-Copy of order in FA 33/09
By order,
Senior Superintendent.
