Kerala

Trissur

op/05/237

Chacko Jacob - Complainant(s)

Versus

Thrissur Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

V. G. Jayapal

30 Sep 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. op/05/237
 
1. Chacko Jacob
Kanjirapparambil (H), Mission Quarters
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Thrissur Corporation
Rep by Secretary
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh PRESIDENT
 HONORABLE Rajani P.S. Member
 HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S Member
 
PRESENT:V. G. Jayapal, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 M. Vinod and K. Suraj , Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
ORDER

 

 
By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
 
          The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant is an electricity consumer of the respondent vide consumer No.610 of house No.8/502. It is a domestic connection. The complainant paid regularly towards the electricity charges and used electricity in a very limited manner. But the respondent issued a notice dtd. 2.3.05 on 5.3.05 calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.45,414/- as arrears till 1/01 within 7 days if not they will disconnect the supply. The said notice did not show any calculations for the arrears demanded. When enquired with the respondent office they stated that there was no record for the same and no satisfactory reply got from the respondent. The complainant is not liable to pay for the electricity charges that he has not used. The said bill is illegal and also time barred. The above said act show unfair trade practice and is against natural justice. Hence the complaint.
          2. The respondent remained exparte.
          3. To prove the case of the complainant, he filed affidavit and produced Exts. P1 to P22 documents.
 
          4. The complainant’s case is that he regularly paid all the electricity bills issued by the respondent to his domestic connection. But the respondent has issued a notice dtd. 2.3.05 for Rs.45,414/- as arrears till 1/01. The notice further states that if the amount is not paid within 7 days they will disconnect the supply. The said bill never reveals calculation for the arrear demanded. Being a prompt consumer he is not liable to pay the bill.
 
          5. There is no evidence to the contrary.
          6. The complainant produced Exts. P1 to P22 documents to show that he paid the electricity bill regularly from 2/02 to 2/05. But the disputed notice dtd. 2.3.05 is not produced. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
 
          7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
 
          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of September 2011.
 
 
[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONORABLE Rajani P.S.]
Member
 
[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S]
Member

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.