BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 121/2004 Filed on 16.03.2004<br /> Dated : 15.04.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> I. Albhutham, Mavarathalakkal Veedu, Kunnappuzha, Aramada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> Opposite parties :<br /> 1.The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 4.<br /> 2.The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Thirumala Section, Thiruvananthapuram – 6.<br /> (By adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18.01.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 17.03.2008, the Forum on 15.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed for quashing the bill dated 24.05.2003 for Rs. 828/- and for direction to opposite party to reconnect the electric connection and for compensation. It is stated in the complaint as follows : Complainant is a consumer under Electrical Section, Thirumala with consumer No. 3299. He had been remitting the bill amount of Rs. 85/- permanently as current charge. On 24.05.2003 opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 828/-. The said bill was not issued by the opposite parties at the time of meter reading rather it was issued on 28.07.2003. When the complainant went to opposite parties' office for remitting the fixed amount of Rs. 85/-, opposite parties refused to accept the said amount of Rs. 85/- without remitting the disputed amount of Rs. 828/-. Even after the last date of remittance of the disputed amount the supply was not disconnected. Complainant has been using current for lighting 2 bulbs, one tube and for operating a fan. On 06.07.2003 opposite parties disconnected the electric connection. Narrating this a complaint was lodged to the opposite parties' office. No action was taken on that complaint. Further another complaint was lodged to the Minister concerned and enquiry was ordered. Subsequently meter was checked and found not defective. No further action was taken up by the opposite parties and hence this complaint is filed for quashing the bill dated 24.05.2003 for Rs. 828/- and for direction to opposite parties to reconnect the electric connection and for compensation. <br /> <br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending as follows : The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has not exhausted the remedy provided under Rule 32(b) and 48(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and Sec. 26(6) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. Complainant is a consumer registered under Electrical Section, Thirumala with consumer No. 3299. The consumer has remitted bimonthly current charges of Rs. 409/- for the month of 6/02 and 7/02, Rs. 96/- for 08/02 and 9/02 and Rs. 98/- for 10/02 and 11/02. Later on mechanical meter which was installed in the premises of the complainant was found faulty. The mechanical meter was replaced by an electrical meter on 23.01.2003. The electronic meter recorded 330 units as the consumption of electricity by the complainant for the month of 04/03 and 05/03 and complainant was charged Rs. 825/-, being the charges for the electricity actually consumed by the consumer. But the complainant defaulted in paying the bill amount of Rs. 825/-. The service to the complainant's premises was disconnected. The right to disconnect the power supply under Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 is available with the Board on the failure of the consumer to pay the electricity bill. Subsequently on 28.07.2003 a bill for Rs. 85/- was issued to the consumer, which being the minimum charge to be paid to a domestic consumer even if the service connection is disconnected. On receiving the complaint from the complainant the 2nd opposite party himself visited the complainant's premises and inspected the meter and found that the meter is working properly. This matter was informed to the complainant and advised him to remit all the dues. But the complainant did not remit the amount due from him. The supply to his premises was disconnected, as he has defaulted the electric charges. The bill issued to the complainant is genuine and he is bound to pay the bill amount. The supply to his premises can be restored only after remittance of the bill amount along with other incidental amounts. <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986?<br /> (ii)Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?<br /> (iii)Reliefs.<br /> <br /> On the part of the complainant, complainant as PW1 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext. P1 to P7 are marked. On the part of opposite parties no evidence was adduced. <br /> <br /> Points (i) to (iii):- The first point requiring consideration is whether this complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. By the reasons of the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is evident that remedies provided under Consumer Protection Act are not in derogation of those provided under other laws. The remedy provided under Consumer Protection Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The predecessors of this Forum entertained this complaint and opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Now around 4 years have been lapsed after filing this complaint. If this complaint is allowed to be referred to the statutory body after a long gap of 4 years, the very purpose of the complaint would further be delayed. On the strength of Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act, this Forum views that this complaint is maintainable. The next point requiring consideration is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The specific case of the complainant is that his electric connection is one of domestic purpose. Ever since the connection had taken, complainant had been remitting the bill without default. His bill amount had been more or less stable which was around Rs. 85/-. At this juncture it would be useful to see the pattern of consumption on the basis of the bills issued by the opposite parties. Ext. P5 is the copy of the bill dated 29.03.2003 wherein the consumption shown is 45 units and current charge is Rs. 85/-. The spot billing system was in force. Ext. P4 is the copy of the bill dated 24.05.2003 wherein the consumption shown is 338 units and current charge is Rs. 828/-. The next bill dated 28.07.2003 is marked as Ext. P3 wherein consumption not mentioned, but current charge is Rs. 85/-. Again on 28.11.2003 another bill was issued to the complainant which is marked as Ext. P2 wherein the consumption never shown, but current charge is Rs. 85/-. The allegation of the complainant is that on 29.05.2003 spot biller came to the complainant's premises and meter reading was noted but the bill was not issued on that date. Complainant further submitted that the bill prevailed till 29th May 2003 was to the tune of Rs. 85/-. After the said date the same bill amount continued. Absolutely all the above said pattern of consumption as per Exts. P2 to P5 would show that except for bills dated 24th May 2003 and 29th March 2003 as per Exts. P4 and P5, in all other bills consumption is not mentioned. It is pertinent to note that Ext. P2 to P5 were issued to the complainant by the spot biller, but without mentioning the consumption. When exceptionally high consumption was shown in Ext. P4 the complainant was rightly protested. On 06.07.2003 opposite party disconnected the electric connection of the complainant's premises. Complainant lodged complaint before the 2nd opposite party and no action was taken by the 2nd opposite party initially. Later on opposite party inspected the said meter and found the meter concerned was not defective. Complainant further submitted that the connection was taken for lighting two bulbs, one tube and for operating one fan. After filing this complaint on 24.08.2004 as per the direction of the predecessors of this Forum opposite party reconnected the electric connection on remittance of Rs. 500/- by the complainant. It can be seen from Ext. P7 bill issued by the opposite parties. Thereafter on 28.05.2005 the predecessors of this Forum directed the opposite parties to instal a new meter and observe the reading for the consecutive 4 months. After installation of the new meter by the opposite parties two bills were furnished, one dated 01.08.2005 and another one dated 01.10.2005. The bill dated 01.08.2005 is for Rs. 102.84. The bill dated 01.10.2005 is for Rs. 101/-. Even though these two bills were not marked the said bills are on record of this forum. Complainant was not cross examined by the opposite parties and opposite parties never filed proof affidavit and not himself appeared in box to be cross examined by the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant remains unchallenged. This forum is not in a position to consider the contents of the version as such since the opposite parties failed to furnish proof affidavit and documents if any to substantiate the averments in the version and to controvert the evidence adduced by the complainant. On going through the contents in the complaint, proof affidavit filed by PW1 and Exts P1 to P7 and other materials on record and hearing of both parties this Forum is of the view that complainant had succeeded in establishing his case. Deficiency in service is proved. The bill dated 24.05.2003 issued to the complainant by the opposite party is to be quashed. Disconnection of electric connection to the complainant's premises was illegal. The interim order dated 24.08.2004 directing the opposite parties to reconnect the electric connection with consumer No. 3299 of Thirumala section is to be made absolute. <br /> <br /> In the result, complaint is allowed. The bill dated 24.05.2003 for Rs. 858/- issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party is quashed. Opposite parties are directed to raise fresh bill for the months of April and May 2003 taking 6 months average consumption on the basis of 3 bills issued for the consumption of 6 months prior to the bill dated 24.05.2003. Reconnection as per interim order dated 24.08.2004 is made absolute. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th April 2008. <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 121/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> NIL<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Photocopy of complainant's letter dated 30.09.2003 to the opposite party. <br /> <br /> P2 - Photocopy of Bill No. C-36 dtd. 21.11.2003 of Consumer No. 3299.<br /> <br /> P3 - Photocopy of Bill No. F – 00796 dtd. 21.07.2003 of Consumer No. 3299.<br /> <br /> P4 - Photocopy of Bill No. U-0036 dated 24.05.2003 of Consumer No. 3299.<br /> <br /> P5 - Photocopy of Bill No. I -35 dated 22.03.2003 of consumer No. 3299.<br /> <br /> P6 - Photocopy of complainant's letter dated 06.07.2003 to the opposite party.<br /> <br /> P7 - Photocopy of receipt dated 24.08.2004 Rt. No. 179.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT