DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.138/2009
Mohammed Salim, S/o.Khani, S.M.Salim House, Padalikkadu, Kottekkadu Post, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.K.P.Nouphal & R.Ratheeshkumar)
Vs
1. The Secretary, KSE Board, Vidhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.L.Namassivayan)
2. The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Office, Marutharode, Kallepully Post, Palakkad. - Opposite party (By Adv.L.Namassivayan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.5474. The same electrical connection was issued to the complainant for the
agricultural purpose for the tariff applicable for agricultural connection. On the basis of an alleged inspection conducted by the 2nd opposite party in the connection site, 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the electricity availed to the said connection is misused for commercial purpose. So the complainant must pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- on or before 28/04/09 in order to avoid immediate disconnection. The alleged inspection and findings of the opposite parties are baseless and utter false and hence denied by the complainant. The complainant was forced to pay the said amount under protest due to the extreme necessity for electricity for watering his agricultural land. On 23.09.09 the opposite parties disconnected the electricity without any further notice and clarification and communication as contemplated under law. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for getting his connection reinstated, but the opposite party has not given connection. The above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to reinstate the electricity connection bearing consumer No.5474 and refund the amount of Rs.18,000/- collected from the complainant on 28.04.09 with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the loss of crops and mental agony and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The 2nd opposite party filed version on behalf of the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties stated that on 26.03.09 the officers of the opposite parties conducted a surprise inspection to the complainant's field and found that the
electricity connection was used for irrigating the bricks manufacturing unit. At the time of inspection, one 5hp motor, one 3 hp motor and one 1.5 hp motor are seen on the premises of the complainant and site mahazar was prepared. The opposite parties stated that the electricity connection was issued to the complainant for agricultural purpose under LT.V tariff. On 27.03.09 the opposite parties issued provisional invoice bill for Rs.2,41,440/- to the complainant with notice stating that complaint if any to be filed within 7 days to the Assistant Engineer. On the complaint of the complainant, hearing was conducted on 02.04.09. Complainant's son Shajudeen was present in the hearing and admitted that the workers in the bricks manufacturing unit used the electricity when the diesel motor was not working. Shajudeen requested to reduce the bill to the lowest minimum. Then the said amount was reduced to Rs.24,150/- vide bill No.046120 dt.06.04.09. Thereafter the complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- on 28.04.09 and the balance amount was not paid. If the complainant misused electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose for commercial purpose, he must be paid the electric charge under LT VII tariff. On 05.08.09 the opposite parties issued further notice for Rs.33,381/-. But the complainant has not paid the bill amount. The opposite parties stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and hence not liable to pay Rs.10,000/- for the loss of crops and mental agony. The opposite parties totally denied the submission of the complainant that he used electricity only for agricultural purpose. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant was liable to pay the bill amount as the bills were issued as per the rules and regulations of the
KSEB. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
The evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the complainant and opposite parties. Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on the side of opposite parties.
Issues to be considered are; Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2: On perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties with consumer No.5474. In the complaint and the affidavit the complainant stated that he was forced to pay the bill amount. As per Ext.A1 the complainant has paid only Rs.10,000/- on 28.04.09 and the balance amount is Rs.14,150/-. Further contentions raised by the complainant is that on 23.09.09 the opposite party disconnected the electricity connection without any further notice and clarification and communication to the complainant. According to Ext.B5 the bill amount of Rs.33,381/- was not paid before 20.08.09 and hence the electricity connection was disconnected. The complainant has not raised any objection in marking of this document. As per Ext.B1 site mahazar, Ext.B2 hearing report and notice dt.27.03.09 signed by the
son of the complainant Mr.Shajudeen who was present in the hearing conducted by the officials of opposite party and on his request the penal bill amount was reduced to Rs.24,150/-. The complainant has not produced any contrary evidence to this aspect. Also the complainant has not raised any objection in marking of these documents. The complainant stated that no visit or surprise visit were conducted by the opposite parties or their officials to complainant's field or shed. The complainant admitted that the opposite parties issued the total bill for Rs.18,000/-. Further the complainant stated that he has not authorised anybody including his son or other to appear and give representation for and on behalf of him to the opposite parties. As per Ext.B4, the final assessment bill is for Rs.24,150/- dt.06.04.09. According to Ext.A1 the amount due is Rs.24,150/- and the total paid amount is Rs.10,000/- and the balance amount is Rs.14,150/-. The complainant stated that as per Ext.A1 bill amount is Rs.18,000/-. It is wrong. The complainant has not produce documentary evidence to show that bill amount is only for Rs.18,000/-.
The documentary evidence available on record would show that the complainant misused electrical energy supplied for agricultural purpose by using the same for commercial purpose.
In view of the above discussions we hold the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Hence the complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Appendix Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Witnesses examined on the side of complainant Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photo copy of cash receipt dt.28.04.09 for Rs.10,000/- Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 – Photo copy of site mahasar dt.26.03.09 Ext.B2 – Photo copy of hearing report Ext.B3 – Photo copy of Invoice dt.27.03.09 for Rs.2,41,440/- Ext.B4 - Photo copy of Invoice dt.06.04.09 for Rs.24,150/- Ext.B5 – Photo copy of notice dt.05.08.09
| HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member | |