Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/673

DOMINIC LUKOSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

D.R RAJESH

20 Mar 2019

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 673/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :20.03.2019

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.184/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                                : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

SRI.RANJIT.R                                  : MEMBER

 

SMT.BEENA KUMARI.A                   : MEMBER

 

 

APPELLANT

 

Dominic Lukose, S/o.Lukose, Padavathiyil, Neendoor.P.O, Onamthuruthu Village, Kottayam District

 

 

                (By Adv.Sri.D.R.Rajesh)

 

 

VS

RESPONDENTS

 

1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram 695004

 

2. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Neendoor, Neendoor.P.O, Kottayam – 686 601

 

(Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

78503207062.  

 

SRI.T.S.P.MOOSATH                        :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                The complainant in CC.No.184/2014 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, in short the district forum has filed the appeal against the order passed by the forum by which the complaint was dismissed.

 

                2.     The averments contained in the complaint are in brief as follows. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party KSEB having electric connection, vide consumer no.403 of electric section Neendoor. The complainant had regularly remitted electricity charges as per the bills issued by the opposite parties, which were issued after taking meter reading. But on 20.01.2014 the opposite party issued a notice with an incomplete bill demanding to pay       Rs 5693/- as additional amount for the period from 03/2012 to 07/2012 stating that the meter was faulty and fault was found on verification of the reading register. The complainant filed objection but the opposite party could not give a proper clarification for provisional bill and calculation. Again on 29.04.2014, a fresh order was issued confirming the previous order and directing the complainant to pay an additional bill amount on or before the last date fixed for it, without giving any specific date for the notice and demand.  The additional bill dated 20.01.2014 for Rs 5693/- was issued by the opposite parties without proper assessment or inspection by the authorities. The actual consumption during the disputed period was decreased not due to any fault of the meter. But it was due to the disconnection of an inverter which is highly electrical consumption equipment. The act of the opposite parties, issuance of an additional bill of Rs 5693/- amounts,  to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opposite parties filed version raising the following contentions. The complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the consumer no.403 of electrical section Neendoor is registered in favour of Mathai.P.L, Padavathil house and the registered consumer has the sole authority to raise any dispute relating to the service connection. The Engineer, Audit Wing of the KSEB had detected the omission of charging during the meter reading. The energy concerned in the premises of consumer no.403 was short assessed for the period from 03/12 to 07/12. As the meter installed was not recording the actual energy consumed, the meter was changed on 27.03.2012 and the opposite parties issued the disputed bill on the basis of the average consumption of the past six months as per the rules. The statement of the complainant that the electric consumption was decreased since he had disconnected the inverter during the disputed period is not correct. The opposite parties had issued the disputed bill as per the rules. There is no deficiency of service on their part. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the opposite parties.

 

                3.     Both parties filed affidavit. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both sides the district forum dismissed the complaint finding that the complaint is not maintainable.

 

                4.     Aggrieved by the order passed by the district forum the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

         

                5.     Heard both sides. Perused the records.

 

                6.     The complainant has filed the complaint disputing / challenging the bill issued by the opposite parties regarding consumer no.403 of electric section, Neendoor in the complaint it is stated by the complainant that he is a consumer of the opposite party, KSEB having electric connection vide consumer no.403 of Electric Section, Neendoor. The opposite parties contended that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as consumer no. 403 is registered in the name of one Mathai.P.L and the disputed bill was issued to him. On a perusal of the complaint and prooof affidavit filed by complainant it can be seen that the name of the complainant is Dominic Lukose and his father’s name is stated as Lukose. In Ext.A1 bill, A2 notice and A3 bill which are disputed by the complainant, the name of the consumer is stated as Mathai.P.L. As found by the district forum when the opposite parties raised the contention that the complainant has no locus standi to file complaint since consumer no.403 is in the name of one Mathai.P.L, the complainant has to prove by legal evidence that he is the consumer of the opposite parties or the beneficiary of the service provided by the opposite parties. But the complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding the same. As rightly found by the district forum, there is no evidence to consider that the complainant is a consumer or a beneficiary of the opposite parties and so the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable.

         

                7.     The counsel for the appellant submitted that ‘Mathai’ shown as the consumer in the bills and notices issued by the opposite parties is the father of the complainant and after the death of Mathai the property and building devolved upon the complainant who is a beneficiary of the electric connection provided by the opposite parties to the building. He submitted that full name o f the father of the complainant is Mathai Padavathil Lukose. It is to be noted that the complainant has no such case in the complaint and he has not adduced any evidence to prove the same. We consider that there is no reason / ground to interfere with the finding of the district forum that the complaint is not maintainable and the Order passed by the district forum by which the complaint was dismissed. So the appeal is to be dismissed.

                In the result the appeal is dismissed.

                Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

 

 

T.S.P.MOOSATH              : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT.R                         : MEMBER

 

BEENA KUMARI.A           : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NUMBER 673/2016

JUDGMENT DATED :20.03.2019