DATE OF FILING : 29.11.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.251/2010
Between
Complainant : Thomas Philip,
Chandravanam Estate,
Keerikkanam P.O.,
Vandipperiyar, Idukki District.
(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section - Vandipperiyar,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is having a residential electrical connection as per Consumer No.5388 for his estate bungalow named 'Chandravanam Estate' in LT 1 A, three phase domestic category. The complainant is residing there only for 15 days and a servant of the complainant is residing there alone. The consumer consumes electricity for only 3 lights in the compound of his house. The energy consumption is only 100 units for 2 months from June 2007 to January 2008 and he was promptly paying the bills supplied by the opposite party. On 9.4.2008, the 2nd opposite party supplied a bill for electricity for an amount of Rs.20,488/- and it is written that the consumption is 3466 units. The complainant never consumed such a huge unit of electricity and the consumption for the month of January-February is only 80 units. It was caused only because of the mistake happened to the opposite party in the reading. The petitioner gave a complaint to the 2nd opposite party on 10.4.2008. So the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to pay the bill to avoid disconnection and assured that the mistake will be cleared after enquiry and the amount paid will be deducted from future bills. So the complainant paid the same under protest. No other explanations were given from the opposite party. So the complainant constrained to sent a lawyer's notice which was received by the opposite party on 22.10.2010 and a reply notice was received from the opposite party dated 11.11.2010 stating that it is a 3 phase connection and the complainant has to pay the energy charge of minimum 100 units every month. It is also stated that there is no mistake happened to the opposite party in the calculation of bill and confirmed the bill supplied by the opposite party. So this petition is filed for cancelling the bill issued by the opposite party dated 9.4.2008 for an amount of Rs.20,488/-.
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
2. The written version filed by the opposite party stated that the consumer has earlier filed CC.96/2010 on the same grounds allegation raised herein and was dismissed by this Forum. Hence the complaint is barred by resjudicata. The consumer's premise is a bungalow having about 3000 square feet floor area and a connected load of 2255 watts. A 3 phase service connection is given to this bungalow. While taking the reading on 9.4.2008, the consumption recorded was found as 3466 units for two months and Rs.20,488/- was billed and it was remitted by the consumer. While taking reading on 4/2010, there was usage of 6684 units for 6 months (on 12/2009 and 2/2010 door kept locked when the meter reader went for taking reading) and bill amounting to Rs.33,834/- was issued to the consumer. The consumer approached the Forum and filed a complaint vide CC.No.96/2010. Based on this case, check meter was installed in the premises and found that the meter in the consumer's premises was good. The above case was dismissed on merits. Based on the meter reading register, it is obvious that the consumption during the summer season is high (particularly 2/2008, 4/2008, 2/2010, 4/2010). Moreover, on personal inspection of the opposite party, it is found that there is a permanent watchman with family, living in the outhouse of the bungalow, who is also using electricity. So the complaint is not at all maintainable.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext. R1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- The complainant who deposed as PW1, a bill was issued on 9.4.2008 for an amount of Rs.20,488/- and it was paid by PW1 under protest to the opposite party after filing a complaint to the opposite party for clearing the mistake in the bill. The copy of the bill issued is marked as Ext.P1. The application given by the complainant to the opposite party for clearing the mistake in the bill is marked as Ext.P2(series). The opposite party assured that the mistake will be cleared after enquiry. But no explanation was given to the complainant about the same after the payment of the bill. So the complainant filed a legal notice on 15.10.2010, copy of the same with postal acknowledgement card is marked as Ext.P3. In the reply given by the opposite party stated that the complainant's connection is 3 phase and so a minimum 100 units electrical energy charge is needed for the same. If there is any increase of consumption, the amount should be paid according to the same. As per the enquiry, there is no mistake happened in the reading or working of the meter. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount. Ext.P4 is the reply received by the complainant. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, the complainant admitted that there is a case filed by the complainant as CC.No.96/2010 in which the dispute is regarding the bill dated 7.4.2010. The Order in that case is marked as Ext.R1. But there is no mention about the bill issued in 2008 in that complaint. The matter was informed to his advocate counsel, but it was not mentioned. It is also admitted that the check meter was connected to his meter for checking the mistake in the meter reading. There was no mistake in the meter reading when it was checked by the check meter and PW1 is very much confident about his watchman and he will not misuse electrical energy in this premise.
As per the opposite party, a complaint was filed by the complainant as CC No.96/2010 about the dispute regarding the electricity bill issued to the complainant in the year 2010. But in the affidavit or petition of CC No.96/2010, there is no mention regarding dispute of this bill dated 9.4.2008 for an amount Rs.20,488/-. As per the affidavit and the petition, the complainant was promptly paying the bill issued by the opposite party. While cross examination, the complainant
(cont....3)
- 3 -
was asked why the matter was concealed at the time of filing the CC.No.96/2010 and the complainant deposed that it was already informed to his counsel. In this case, a check meter was provided by the opposite party for checking the correctness of the meter connected to the complainant's premise and after checking, it was cleared that there is no error in the meter connected to the complainant's residence. The complainant himself admitted that he was not living there and a watchman alone is staying there. So it means that there is no error showed in the meter or in the meter reading. But the meter reading increased in the month of February 2008 and also in the month of April 2010 as per CC No.96/2010. So we think that as per the opposite party, the meter reading became hike in the summer season and not because of any mistake from the part of the opposite party in taking reading. On perusing the evidence, we are also come to a conclusion that the meter reading of the complainant has raised in summer season and a watchman is also living there, the complainant himself never revealed about this disputed bill in CC No.96/2010 when it was filed on 3.5.2010. PW1 in his version admitted that there was a bill issued by the opposite party in the year 2008.
On perusing Ext.R1 order passed by this Forum, in CC No.96/2010, it is admitted by PW1 that there was a bill for Rs.20,488/- issued by the opposite party and he paid the amount. The electrical heater, fridge and lights were also connected to his premises. This matter was also mentioned in the case 96/2010, but no dispute raised by the complainant about the Ext.P1 bill in that case. Now 2 years has already covered and the complainant's counsel filed a legal notice on 15th October, 2010 in order to overcome the bar of limitation of the case. The complainant never revealed about the disputed Ext.P1 bill in CC 96/2010 while the evidence was produced, even this dispute was existing then. So the version of the complainant is not at all believable. There is no defect found in meter reading of the opposite party or in the energy meter of the complainant. So there is no deficiency proved by the complainant against the opposite party.
Hence the petition dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
(cont......4)
- 4 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Thomas Philip
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.20,488/-.
Ext.P2(series) - Copies of letters given by the complainant to the opposite party and copy of
the receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs.20,488/-.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
dated 15.10.2010.
Ext.P4 - Copy of the AD Card for the legal notice.
Ext.P5 - Copy of the reply received by the complainant from the opposite party.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the Order from this Forum in CC No.96/2010 dated 18.11.2010.
