BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.136/2008 Between Complainant : Varkey S/o Varkey, Koonanickal House, Manjappara P.O, Manjappara, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram 2. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Nedumkandam. (By Adv: C.K.Babu) O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complaint is filed for getting reconnection of the service residence electric connection of the complainant and also for deficiency in service.
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party for his residential electric connection as Consumer No.2434 and promptly paying the electricity bills upto 2001. After 2001, the complainant was not able to pay the bills issued by the opposite party promptly and so the connection was disconnected in the year 2002. After that the electric line connected, through which the supply was given to the complainant's residence was removed by the opposite party. In 2006 the complainant again applied for the reconnection of the same and for that purpose the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for several times. The opposite party requested for paying the dues of the electricity charges. When the complainant approached the opposite party with the due amount, the opposite party was never accepted the same and ordered to pay another Rs.4,285/- for reconnection of the residence connection. The complainant is not able to pay such a huge amount to the opposite party. Without giving any notice to the complainant, the opposite party removed the electric metel wires from the post and supplied a hike bill to the complainant, which is illegal and the complainant is not entitled to pay the same. The complaint is filed for getting reconnection of the residence electric connection and also for cancelling the bill issued at the period of disconnection.
2. The 2nd opposite party filed written version for and on behalf of the Ist opposite party and admitted that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.2434. The electricity bill supplied by the opposite party was not paid by the complainant for a long time and the connection was dismantled on 30.10.2002. But the meter was not taken back since it was locked in his house. After dismantling, the consumer has never applied either for reconnection or for new connection. The arrears for re-effecting connection was informed to the complainant. As per order NO.B.O(FB) No.2205/2004(DPCI/GI/2003) dated 4.09.2004, other charges also will apply for re-effecting connection. If the consumer remit all arrears of dismantled connection, he can apply for a new connection and can be given considering priority subject to Electricity Act and Rules. If the consumer remits all arrears he can apply either for re-effecting the old connection or for a new connection. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there is 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 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on side of the opposite parties. 5. The POINT :- Complainant is a consumer of opposite party as consumer No.2434 from 24.09.1992 onwards in Minimum Guarantee scheme for his domestic purpose. The said connection was disconnected and dismantled on 30.10.2002. The opposite party issued an arrear bill which was not paid by the complainant. So the reconnection was not given to the complainant. The complainant is examined as PW1. He deposed that the complainant was regularly paying all the bills. Ext.P1 is the bill issued by the opposite party on 22.02.2001 to the complainant which is of Rs.46/-. But after a major operation, the complainant was not able to pay the electricity bill regularly and the connection was disconnected. The electrical line from the electric posts were also removed by the Ist opposite party without giving any notice to the complainant. The complainant enquired about the arrear electricity bill and the opposite party told that it was for only Rs.632/-. But they have issued an invoice for Rs.4,285/- including electricity charges after the dismantling. So the complainant is not entitled to pay the same. Complainant himself paid the entire amount for fixing 4 posts towards his residence for drawing electricity connection. 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1. He deposed that since the complainant did not pay the bills for a long time his connection was dismantled. The meter was not taken because the house was locked. The complainant never applied for a reconnection and so it was not given. The complainant must pay the entire arrear of electricity bill for effecting a reconnection as per the order of the KSEB dated 4.09.2004 which is Ext.R1. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was promptly paying the bills upto 2000. The opposite party also admitted that the complainant's electrical connection was dismantled in 2002. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, the opposite party delivered that he is not aware about the fact, whether the house was locked and so the meter reading was not taken. The electric posts are still remains and the entire electrical wires were removed. As per DW1, the electrical energy charge is only Rs.632/-. Ext.P2 bill shows that the charges from 6/2000 to 2/2002 is Rs.632/- and charges from 4/2002 to 4/2008 is Rs.2,170/-. Other charges is Rs.1,483/-. Thus a total arrear is Rs.4,285/-. The entire electrical lines were removed from the post and the electric connection was dismantled from 2002 onwards. Again a charge of Rs.2,170/- and Rs.1,483/- is demanded from the complainant as per Ext.P2. The opposite party deliberately delaying the reconnection of the complainant's electrical connection by demanding a huge amount. It is a gross deficiency from the part of opposite party. Also we think it is fit to cancel the bill and the complainant should pay only Rs.632/- as per electrical energy charges upto 2002. The complainant who is a 62 years old man, is entitled to get reconnection after paying the dues upto 2002. Complainant suffered a lot because of the non-availability of electrical connection. The following reliefs are granted to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancell the Ext.P2 bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.4,285/-. The opposite parties are directed to issue bill for the electrical energy of the complainant's electrical connection No.2434, upto the date of dismantling of the electric connection. The surcharge and penal charges should be avoided. After receiving the dues upto the period of dismantling the opposite party is directed to issue reconnection to the complainant's residence within 15 days. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconvenience caused to the complainant because of the non-availability of electrical connection and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of January, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Varkey Varkey On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Sajimon K.J
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - True copy of current bill dated 22.02.2001 for Rs.46/- Ext.P2 - True copy of chit for Rs.4,285/- issued by the 2nd opposite party On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - True copy of Electricity Board Order(FB) No.2205/2004(DPC.1/G1/2003) dated 4.09.2004
| 
