Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member
24th day of February 2023
CC 460/15 filed on 11/08/15
Complainant : Paulson. E.K, Erinjery House,
Warriam Lane, Thrissur- 680 001.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1. Assistant Secretary, Thrissur Corporation,
Electricity Section, Thrissur.
2. Thrissur Corporation, Rep.by Secretary, Thrissur.
(By Adv. M.V.Gopalakrishnan, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:
Complainant is a domestic electricity consumer with Consumer No. 2491 of opposite party. The connection was in the name of one Govindankutty and the properties has been purchased on 09/06/1981 and the complainant was regularly remitting electricity charges. On 21/03/15 the complainant preferred a petition to change the ownership to his name and thereafter they issued an arrear demand notice on 25/07/15 for Rs.7830/- It shows charges up to 3/01 amounting to Rs.6836/- and interest Rs.1194/-. The bill was issued without any basis and there is no arrear in electricity charges from the part of the complainant. No readings or computation were shown and the demand is barred by limitation. The act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.
2) Version by Opposite parties :
Complaint is not maintainable. The connection stands in the name of one Govindankutty and he has not been impleaded in the party array. Hence the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary party. It is the responsibility of the complainant to change the connection to his name as soon as he purchased the property. The consumer defaulted the energy charges and same need to be remitted to consider the change of ownership of service connection. The complainant was not ready to remit arrears and to escape from it, he falsely filed an application to change the ownership. Thus the consumer is liable to pay the energy charges and arrears as per additional bill and thereafter the application to change the ownership can be considered. The arrear amounts 6636 from 4/93 to 03/01 and thereafter he has to pay fixed unit charge as per slab card and the same is collected through additional bill issued in March and September of every year. The complaint failed to change the ownership even though he was consuming the energy from 1981. Hence he is the sole responsible person to pay the arrears. The demand is not barred by limitation. The proper demand bill has issued which has no infirmity at all. Opposite party purchase electricity fro m KSEB by proper payment and same has been supplied to its consumers. There is no deficiency in service and complaint is only to be dismissed.
3)Points for consideration are ?
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite
parties or not ?
b) Reliefs and costs ?
4) The counsel for complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The produced document was marked as Ext. P1 to P4. Ext.P1 is the copy of notice dated 25/07/15; Ext.P2 is the copy of acknowledgement for request for ownership change dated 23/07/15; Ext.P3 is the copy of bill dated 20/06/15 and Ext.P4 is the copy of Theer deed. Opposite party also produced the documents. The produced documents are marked as Ext.R1 to R3. Ext.R1 is the authorization letter dated 03/05/17; Ext.R2. is the attested copy of ledger from 4/97 to 3/02 and Ext.R3 is the copy of arrear statement.
5) The case of the complainant is that he has been issued with a false bill by the opposite parties and same is produced and marked as Ext.P1. Complainant states that he purchased the property along with electricity connection from one Govindankutty vide Ext.P4 sale deed. The purchase of property is admitted by the opposite parties as well. Ext.P1 has been issued in the name of Govindankutty and complainant admits the same and affirm that he was enjoying the domestic service connection standing in the name of said Govindankutty. Therefore it is evident that the property purchased along with electric connection in the year 1981 and the connection remained in the name of said Govindankutty even though the complainant enjoyed the service connection.
6) Now the opposite parties’ case is that Ext.P1 has been issued for the arrears of energy charges from 4/96 to 03/01. It is admitted by the complainant that connection was enjoyed by him from 1981 onwards under the strength of Ext.P4. Therefore it has been proved that the relevant point of time pertaining to Ext.P1 the connection was enjoyed by the complainant alone. Now the complainant contends the bar of limitation to make demand of arrear charges. This position has been clearly confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Thangal Kunju Musaliyar college of Engineering Vs. KSEB and others as reported in 2013(2) KLT SN192 2013 KHC 2767. Hence the demand notice is not barred by limitation. Ext.R2catagorically proves the case of the opposite party as well.
7) From the above discussion and considering the evidence as a whole, we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish a cogent case before this Commission.
In the result complaint dismissed without cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 24th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext.P1 copy of notice dated 25/07/15.
Ext.P2 copy of acknowledgement for request for ownership change dtd. 23/07/15.
Ext.P3 copy of bill dated 20/06/15.
Ext.P4 copy of Theer deed.
Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :
Ext.R1 authorization letter dated 03/05/17.
Ext.R2 attested copy of ledger from 4/97 to 3/02.
Ext.R3 copy of arrear statement.
Id/-
Member
