M KESAVAN Vs. JUNIOR ENGINEER TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2004-5-5
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 20,2004

M Kesavan Appellant
VERSUS
Junior Engineer Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE complainant's case is as follows: The complainant has been having service connection from the opposite parties in Service Connection No. J -386. The average consumption was only in 190. While so, all of a sudden on 28.10.1999 he received bill stating that he had consumed 435 units and claiming a sum of Rs.668/ - towards consumption charges. The complainant was shocked on receiving such a bill. The opposite parties did not give any proper or valid explanation for the same. Even without taking into account the status of the complainant who is working as the Post Master the complainant was dragged and harassed and ill -treated by the opposite parties. The complainant gave his objections in writing to the bill and with a view to prevent disconnection, the complainant also paid a sum of Rs.668/ - towards the consumption charges. The opposite parties have not given any reason for the sudden increase in the consumption charges. Thus, there is deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint.
(2.) THE opposite parties contended thus: On 3.11.1999 at about 5 p. m. , the opposite party received a letter from the complainant stating that he has received an electricity bill claiming a sum of Rs.663/ - and, therefore, requested the opposite parties to come and take the meter. Inquiry was made of the meter reader on 1.11.1999. After making inquiries the opposite party learnt that the complainant has installed a refrigerator in his house and that during winter days he was using heater as well. The further inquiries revealed that during those months when the reading was taken on 25.6.1999 and 25.8.1999 the children of the complainant were not in the house and, therefore, the iron box was not used. On the direction of the opposite parties, the meter was also checked and it was found that the meter was working properly. The complainant was also instructed how to minimize his consumption. The other allegations made by the complainant are untenable and false. There is no deficiency in service. Hence, the opposite parties pray that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
(3.) THE Lower Forum by its order dated 29.6.2000 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. On 28.10.1999, the consumption was noted at 435 units. The amount payable was computed at Rs.688/ - objecting to the same as excessive the complainant has chosen to come forward with this complaint. The complainant has admitted that he has purchased new refrigerator. It is also admitted that he has been using a heater. It is not disputed that on his complaints step was taken and the meter was checked. The complainant was also informed of the result of the checking by the opposite parties by their letter dated 12.11.1999. Merely because for a particular month a reading has been made at 435 units, one cannot spell out a case of deficiency in service. Especially when the complainant has stated that he had purchased a new refrigerator and that he has been using heater in the winter month it is just possible that the increase can be attributed to the overloading and more drawing of energy on account of the heater and the refrigerator. It is not his case that he has been receiving bills for inflated amounts subsequently as well. Therefore, a lone instance or a sporadic event cannot allow an inference of deficiency in service. Nor it can be held that there is any defect in the meter. Merely because he has been served with a bill which contains the reading of units at 435 units, he cannot immediately jump into the fray and accuse the opposite parties of deficiency in service. It is for him to show how and in what manner there is deficiency in service. A stray bill cannot take the place of proof, more so, when there is admitted excess drawing of energy by reason of installation of refrigerator and user of heater during that month. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the lower Forum was justified in coming to a conclusion that there was no deficiency in service. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.