State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S Bahuleyan vs The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kseb on 22 April, 2016
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.68/14 JUDGMENT DATED:22.04.2016 PRESENT : JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER S. Bahuleyan, Durga Rudra Bhavan, Thazham, Karimpinpuzha P.O, : APPELLANT Puthur, Kottarakkara. (By Adv: Sri.C.S. Rajmohan) Vs. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Kerala State Electricity Board, Puthur. The Executive Engineer, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, : RESPONDENTS Kottarakkara. The Secretary, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, TVPM. (By Adv: Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair) JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.259/2009 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated December 31, 2013 dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
Complainant was residing in Nedumpurath House, Maranadu West, Kollam. He has availed an electric connection from KSEB having consumer No.13027. The connection was given by way of under cable. For the last two years nobody was residing there and the house collapsed but the wall in which the meter was installed remained. After two months it also collapsed. Complainant applied for shifting the meter for which the first opposite party levied Rs.600/- on December 04, 2008 and Rs.221/- on December 09, 2008. Towards the application form Rs.35/- was levied. Inspite of repeated request the meter was not shifted. On August 04, 2009 complainant received a bill for Rs.10,408/-. The said bill is illegal. Complainant has not used any electricity during that period; the opposite parties then disconnected the connection of the complainant. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for cancelling that bill and claiming compensation.
3. Opposite parties are KSEB represented by its Assistant Engineer, Electrical Division, Puthur, the Executive Engineer, Kottarakkara and Secretry, Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. They in their version contended thus before the Forum. The complainant was a consumer of KSEB under electrical section, Puthur vid consumer No.13027. It was a domestic connection taken on April 2004 by drawing 30 meters of underground cable. The connected load was only 320 watts. Up to December 09, 2008 he paid the bill without fail. Complainant applied for change of tariff under I(a)(domestic) to VIIA for construction purpose. He also requested for shifting the meter temporarily from the wall of the dilapidated building to a newly erected structure. He wanted to reconstruct the building. Complainant remitted Rs.856/- on December 09, 2008 for the said purpose. The change of tariff was effected and the shifting of the meter was done on December 09, 2008 and December 15, 2008 respectively. The meter reading was taken on February 03, 2009 by the authorized meter reader of the Board. On February 03, 2009 the meter reading was 1480 which was more than 1062 units of the previous reading on December 09, 2008. Therefore disputed bill was issued. As he did not remit the amount, connection was disconnected on February 26, 2009. A notice for dismantling the connection was issued on July 23, 2009. Agreement with the complainant was terminated on September 20, 2009. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. On the side of the complainant he was examined as PW1 and he produced Exts.P1 to P3 and on the side of the opposite parties, present Assistant Executive Engineer, Puthur was examined as DW1 and he produced Exts.D1 to D3. On an appreciation of evidence Forum found that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed the complaint. Complainant has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard both the counsels.
The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
6. It is not disputed that complainant had an electric connection having consumer No.13027 with the opposite party and the connection was underground cable connection. It is also admitted that complainant applied for changing the tariff from IA to VIIA and the opposite party collected Rs.856/- for shifting the meter and for change of tariff. Ext.B1 is the said application filed by the complainant.
7. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties issued the disputed bill dated, February 03, 2009 showing the meter reading as 1480 calling upon to pay an electric charge of Rs.10052/- which is clearly illegal. According to him nobody was residing in that premises and there was no chance of anybody using electricity during that period.
8. Counsel for the KSEB would argue that in the disputed bill dated February 03, 2009 meter reading is 1480 and the previous meter reading was 418 and that therefore complainant is bound to pay electricity charge Rs.10052/- as he has no case that meter is defective. We are unable to accept the above contention of the opposite parties. In Ext.P2 series the electricity bill dated, December 04, 2008 the meter reading is shown as 418 and the previous meter reading is also shown as 418. Bill dated April 06, 2009 ie after the issuance of the disputed bill both previous and present meter reading is shown as 1480. It is clear from the above that complainant has not used any electricity during that period. Thus showing the meter reading 1480 in the disputed bill appears to be a mistake or may be due to some leakage of electricity. Therefore the finding of the Forum that as the complainant had no complaint regarding the working of the meter, the disputed bill has to be accepted appears to be not correct. We are of the view that the said bill is illegal and liable to be set aside.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside and the complaint is allowed in part. The disputed bill Ext.P1, dated February 03, 2009 is set aside. Before the Forum complainant is allowed a cost of Rs.2000/- and in this appeal he is allowed a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT V.V. JOSE : MEMBER VL.