Kerala

Trissur

CC/05/1194

Abdul Rahman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thrissur Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

K. G. Raghunathan

09 Sep 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/1194

Abdul Rahman
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Thrissur Corporation
Asst. Secretary
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Abdul Rahman

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Thrissur Corporation 2. Asst. Secretary

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. K. G. Raghunathan

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Johnson. T. Thomas



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The averments in the petition are as follows. Petitioner is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.7790A. The said consumer number is to the room owned by the petitioner and the building number is 5/99. The room was given for rent to one Johnly and he had vacated the room on 22.8.05. The electric supply to the said room was remained as disconnected and on 23.8.05 the complainant had cleared the arrears of Rs. 4600/-. Hence he had applied for restoration of electric supply on 23.8.05. At that time the corporation issued a rough calculation statement demanding to remit Rs.18,046/-. Petitioner is not bound to pay the bill amount. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter is filed to the effect that other efficacious remedies are available for the complainant and he never sought. As per Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act the amount sought is not barred by limitation. Petitioner has no right to file this complaint without paying the disputed arrears. Petitioner has no cause of action. The electricity connection of complainant is under VIIA tariff fixed. The impugned bill is genuine. Complainant has not remitted the charges from 4/97 to 1/01 and also the additional bills of 3/00, 9/00 and 1/01. The arrears up to 1/01 was Rs.15,172/- and interest and complainant is liable to remit that amount. The connection under this tariff is commercial and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are:- (1) Is there any deficiency in service? (2) Is the complainant is liable to pay the disputed bill? (3) Other reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 series to P3. No other evidence on either part. 5. Points-1 to 3: According to the complainant there was no arrears in electricity charges. Ext. P1 series are the receipts showing the clearance of arrears up to 23.8.05. He has remitted Rs.4726/- towards arrears on 23.8.05. On that day itself the complainant had put an application to the respondent to restore supply of electricity. The application is marked as Ext. P3. At that time the respondent had issued Ext. P2 rough calculation statement. As per this statement petitioner has to pay Rs.18,046/- for the charges up to 3/01. There is no detailed calculation in Ext. P2 statement. How the respondent arrived at such an amount is not stated. How much electricity used is not stated. The date of issuance of the statement is also not stated. By the averment in the petition it can be seen that at the time of submitting Ext. P3, P2 is issued. At the time of issuance of different bills stated in Ext. P1 series receipts there was no such claim by the respondent. The respondent is issuing bills at their own convenience. It is their duty to issue timely bills. This is a serious service deficiency on the part of Corporation. The issuance of Ext. P2 statement is untimely and without any basis. Along with version the respondent has filed a detailed statement in which it is stated that from 4/97 to 1/01 petitioner has to remit Rs.15,172/-. According to Ext. P2 statement petitioner has to pay Rs.18,046/-. Different amount is sought for a same period and both are not reliable. There is service deficiency for not issuing timely bill. After a long period the respondent is used to issue a huge bill and the consumers are facing great difficulties. At the time of issuance of Ext. P2 statement there was no details and no basis and only with the version a separate statement filed showing the details. So the complainant is not liable to pay the amount shown in Ext. P2. 6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the disputed bill is cancelled and the respondents are directed to restore the connection. No order as to cost and compensation. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 9th day of September 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.