DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing: 29/07/2021
CC/122/2021
Veeravunni.M.V
S/o Mohammed Kutty
Mullath valappil
Islahiya Road, Mavara
P. O. Angadi
Palakkad -679 552 - Complainant
(By DLSA counsel)
Vs
The Superindent
KSEB section
Padinjarangadi P. O
Kumaranelloor, Palakkad - Opposite party
(By Adv. Remika.C)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant
Crux of the complaint is the excess billing by the opposite party for the consumption of electricity for the months of September and October, 2020 by the complainant. According to the complainant, he received a bill showing his consumption as 273 units in his connection number 1165403022630 for the said period, during which his family was not staying in the house on most of the days due to some function at their relative's house.
He approached the opposite party with a complaint on 12/11/2020 and remitted Rs. 400/- towards the bill. He also remitted Rs. 131/-for fixing test meter. Further, as advised by the opposite party, he purchased meter board and 32 ampere fuse carrier spending Rs. 280/-. His allegation is that he was neither informed while fixing the test meter nor informed of the readings in the old meter or the test meter at the time of installation. When enquired with the opposite party it was informed that the test meter is showing reading more than the earlier reading and hence there is no material in his complaint. The complainant's strong belief is that the excess reading may be due to lightning that usually occurs in the area damaging plants and properties. Hence the complaint.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance but didn't file version.
3. The complainant and opposite party filed their proof affidavits, but didn't mark any documents as evidence. Since opposite party filed Proof Affidavit without filing version, their Proof Affidavit is rejected.
4. The complainant had been absent for the sittings on 13/10/22, 22/11/22 and 03/01/23. He was absent also for the Lok Adalath held on 12/11/22. He failed to mark documents as directed by this Commission. Hence complaint was taken for orders based on merits.
5. Complainant has not taken out an expert to verify if there is any defects. Eventhough the complainant sought for exemption from appearance, that does not preclude the complainant from conducting the case or adducing evidence. Complainant has failed to adduce evidence to prove his case.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as one without having any merits.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant: Nil
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined- Nil
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
