D.O.F:30/12/2020 D.O.O:29/07/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.182/2020
Dated this, the 29th day of July 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Razak. B.M
Baithul Falah
Near Posoat Juma Masjid
Post Manjeshwar – Kasaragod : Complainant
And
K.S.EB
Assistant Engineer
Uppala Division
Post. Manjeshwar
Kasaragod : Opposite Party
(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar. M)
-
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant is having electric connection of the Opposite Party, bearing consumer No.1166848015163 for his domestic use. He was receiving electricity bills to the tune of around Rs.1, 900/- to Rs.2, 000/- and the same were being paid regularly. Now he received a bill of Rs 4,690/-. When asked the Opposite Party told that the bill was issued for the electricity used during the month of June and it may be due to meter complaint .The Opposite Party offered to revise the bill by taking average of bill amount of previous three months. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint before them complaint, but the Opposite Party didn’t take any action till December 10.2020. They did not change the meter also, stating that there was no stock. More over the Opposite Party threatened that the connection will be dismantled if the bill amount is not paid and so as to avoid disconnection the complainant paid the bill. When the complainant warned of the consumer complaint, the Opposite Party changed the meter with a new one taken from their store room.
Hence the complaint is filed for a direction to Opposite Party to revise the bill and to pay compensation and costs.
The opposite Party have entered appearance through their Counsel, who filed written statement.
As per the version of the Opposite Party the complaint is false frivolous and not maintainable either in facts or in Iaw. The Opposite Party submitted that the bill under challenge is issued by taking meter reading on 13-10-2020. Since there was no difference seen in the meter, bill was issued taking average, assuming that the meter was not working. The bill amount was paid by the consumer through online. Similarly on 10.12 2020 also there was no difference in the meter reading and the bill was issued taking average .The meter was changed on 15.12.2020, on receipt of the complaint from the consumer. The final reading of the original meter was 26969 and based on that the bill amount for 10th and 12th month reduced to Rs.828/- from Rs.4,690/-and the same was informed to the consumer over phone.
There is no service deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. There is no question of mental agony to be compensated. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents
Ext. A 1 and Ext A2 are marked. PW1 was cross examined. Ext. A 1 is the Demand cum Disconnection Notice dated 10-12-2020 issued by the Opposite Parties, Ext. A 2 is the Consumer Profile of the complainant.
The Opposite party adduced no oral evidence but produced a document, which is marked as Ext B1. The Ext. B1 is the Electricity consumption data and payment receipt of the complainant.
Based on the pleadings and evidence in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of any of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that he was receiving monthly electricity bills for his domestic connection, to the tune of around Rs.1,900/- to Rs.2,000/- and the same were being paid regularly. Now he received a bill of Rs 4,640/-. When asked the Opposite Party told that the bill was issued for the electricity used during the month of June and it may be due to meter complaint .The Opposite Party offered to revise by taking average of bill amount of previous three months . Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint before them complaint, but the Opposite Party didn’t take any action till December 10.2020. They did not change the meter also, stating that there was no stock.
More over the Opposite Party threatened that the connection will be dismantled if the bill amount is not paid and so as to avoid disconnection the complainant paid the bill. When the complainant warned of the consumer complaint, the Opposite Party changed the meter with a new one taken from their store room.
As per the version of the Opposite Party, the bill under challenge is issued by taking meter reading on 13-10-2020. Since there was no difference seen in the meter, bill was issued taking average, assuming that the meter was not working. The bill amount was paid by the consumer online. Similarly on 10.12 2020 also there was no difference in the meter reading, the bill was issued taking average .The meter was changed on 15.12.2020, on receipt of the complaint from the consumer. The final reading of the original meter was 26969 and based on that the bill amount for 10th and 12th month reduced to Rs.828/- from Rs.4,690/-and the same was informed to the consumer over phone.
There is no service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. There is no question of mental agony to be compensated. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Here the main dispute is regarding the exorbitant amount seen in the electricity bill dated 13.10.2020 issued by the Opposite Party. The complainant’s case is that such a bill for Rs 4,690/- was issued by the Opposite Party out of arbitrariness and the Opposite Party would argue that it was after taking average of previous bills. Admittedly the meter was defective. It appears that the Opposite Party was not kind enough to replace the defective meter even after written request from the complaint. The complainant states that the Opposite Party abstained from changing the meter falsely stating that there was no stock of meter. The Opposite Party has come forward to replace the meter and settle the issue only after the complainant warned of filing complaint before consumer commission. Even after the filing of the complaint there was threat of disconnection of the supply. The Opposite party was restrained by an inter locutory order of injunction. Now the issue is almost settled during the pendency of this case.
Therefore considering circumstances and available evidence this commission is of the view that there is negligence and arbitrary ness in issuing the electricity bill to the complainant and dealing with his rights as a consumer and therefore there is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Therefore they are liable to compensate for the mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant. The commission is of the view that Rs.3,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation in this case.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/-, (Rupees Two thousand only) towards the costs to the Complainant
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Demand cum disconnection notice
A2- Consumer profile of the complainant
B1- Electricity consumption data and payment receipt of the complainant
Witness Examined
Pw1- Abdul Razak.B.M
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
