KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTAHPURAM

APPEAL NO.650/2012

JUDGMENT DATED : 11.07.2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.NO.163/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam order dated : 30.04.2012)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS  : MEMBER

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Section,

Kottayam East, KSEB,

Kottayam – 686 001

2. The Secretary,                                                                    APPELLANTS

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

KSEB, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram

(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair, Tvpm)

Vs.

Yasmine Ismail,

River Valley,

Muttambalam.P.O                                                                   RESPONDENT

Kottayam – 686 002

(By Adv.Sri.P.Santhosh kumar, Tvpm)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            Appellants were the opposite parties in CC.No.163/2010 in the CDRF, Kottayam. The complainant the sole respondent in this appeal was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties. It is alleged in the complaint that she and her family members were in Riyad in Soudi Arabia from 01.04.2010 to 21.05.2010. They had locked up the house to which the electricity connection was availed. It is further alleged that the main switch was put off during that period. But the opposite parties issued bill for the period from 05.04.2010 to 06.05.2010 on 06.05.2010 which is unreasonably high. The complainant was regularly paying monthly charges as per bills and invoices given to her and there is no due to be paid to the opposite parties. The amount to be remitted as per the bill dated 06.05.2010 is Rs.57,662/-. The bill came to the notice of the complainant only on 21.05.2010 when she returned from Riyad. The complainant approached the opposite parties and complained about the exorbitant bill. The officials erected a parallel meter and subsequently an officer came to the premises on 05.06.2010 and took away the meter for testing at TMR. But he is a person incompetent to test the meter. The test result was published on 11.06.2010. The said act is challenged as lacking in good faith. After issuing the disputed bill, on 07.06.2010, the first opposite party issued another bill for the month of May for Rs.888/- . If there was leakage or any defect in the internal installation in the premises, the meter reading would have been definitely high in the prior months also. The consumption during the months of January to April 2010 was also much less. Hence it is evident that the impugned bill for Rs.57,662/- was illegal, irregular and without any basis. Hence complainant wanted to set aside that bill.

            2.        The appellants / opposite parties contended before the Forum that the complainant had availed domestic connection in the tariff LT- 1A. Her house is situated in the posh housing colony namely Skyline River Valley, Muttambalam. There are about 21 posh villas situated in that colony and the complainant occupies one such villa. Electricity connection to all these villas is given using under ground cables on request as per regulation no.57 of terms and conditions of electricity supply 2005.As electric meters to all these villas are installed in a separate electric room near the transformer and connections are effected by drawing LT-UG cables after the metering equipments, the meter reader is not restricted in any manner to take meter reading of the premises though the home is under ‘door locked’ condition. The connection to the complainant’s premise is also effected by drawing under ground cable after the metering point at the option of the complainant. While taking the monthly reading of the complainant’s meter on 06.05.2010, it was seen that the meter recorded consumption of 7,653 units which was relatively high when compared to the previous consumption pattern. Hence the meter was examined by the meter reader and he noticed that there was no prima facie defect with the meter. Hence bill for Rs.57,662/- was issued. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            3.        Before the Consumer Forum the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A3. On behalf of the opposite parties also proof affidavit was filed and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. Two meter testing reports were marked as Exts.X1 and X2.Noting that the monthly consumption was unusually high during the dispute period, the Consumer Forum believed the case of the complainant and set aside the disputed Ext.A1 bill dated 06.05.2010. Hence the appeal by the aggrieved opposite parties. The short question is whether the Consumer Forum was justified in setting aside the disputed bill.

            4.        At the outset it may be mentioned that the complainant / respondent availed the services of the appellants in the form of supply of electricity. The respondent has no case that there was deficiency in the matter of supply of electricity which is the service part. In order to sustain the complaint the service must have been availed for consideration in this case promised to be paid. In the matter of payment of consideration there is little scope for deficiency for no service is involved. The complainant has no case that the demand as per the dispute bill was made in violation of any rule or regulation. The respondent wants to take the inference that the disputed bill is issued without any basis because the consumption during the previous months was very much low when compared to the consumption during the disputed period. Ext.A3 series of bills for the months of January to April and June 2010 show that the consumption was much less than the consumption during the disputed period. So the Consumer Forum thought that there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant. But the Consumer Forum failed to take note of the fact that during that period the complainant and family members were away in Riad in Soudi Arabia. No doubt the claim is that the main switch was put off. In that case the consumption must have been nil. That the complainant and his family members were away in a foreign country does not mean that the premise was not used by somebody on their behalf and it can very well be misuse of the premises and the electricity connection. On the part of the appellants the definite contention is that on seeing excess consumption they ensured that the meter was recording consumption correctly. The consumption was by observed by installing parallel meter. Subsequent testing of the meter also revealed no defect with the electric meter. It was after ensuring that the meter was recording consumption correctly that the disputed bill was issued. Under the above circumstances, the Consumer Forum should not have simply accepted the version of the complainant and held that deficiency in service is proved. It is not within the province of a Consumer Forum to decide the actual consumption of electricity in a premises. In the absence of proved deficiency in service, the Consumer Forum erred in setting aside the disputed Ext.A1 bill issued by the appellants. It follows that the appeal is liable to be allowed.

            In the result, the appeal is allowed. In reversal of the order of CDRF, Kottayam in CC.No.163/2010 dated 30.04.2012, the complaint is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in this appeal.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR          : JUDICIAL MEMBER

A.RADHA                                         : MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS                        : MEMBER

Be/

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTAHPURAM

APPEAL NO.650/2012

JUDGMENT

 DATED : 11.07.2014

                        Be/