- (1.) THE complainant's case is thus: The electricity service connection bearing No. E -68, Konkarayakurichi, is in the name of the complainant's uncle Masanamuthu, but the complainant has been enjoying the said service connection by remitting the electricity charges. On 24.7.1997, one of the staff of the opposite party noted that the meter recorded the consumption as 85 units and also recorded the total units displayed in the meter as 6600 in the consumption card. But on verification, the complainant found that the meter actually read as 6624, and thus it was recorded as 6600 thereby computing the total units consumed 85 units. There is only one light point in the complainant's house. Since the complainant is not consuming even the minimum units of electricity, the opposite party has been only collecting Rs. 20/ - per month towards consumption charges. On account of the wrong noting, the complainant was charged to pay Rs. 85/ - towards electricity charges. Questioning the same, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party, but no action was taken. He again sent a complaint on 6.9.1997 to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Board and also to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Srivaikuntam. A reply was sent on 18.11.1997 containing incorrect particulars. The complainant thereafter sent a complaint to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Only after that a letter dated 18.11.1997 was sent by the opposite party. The opposite party is not entitled to collect the consumption charges more than Rs. 20/ -. Instead of taking action on the complaint preferred by the complainant, they have disconnected the service connection without giving any notice. It amounts to gross deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant has come forward with this complaint for a direction to the opposite party to restore the service connection and to pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/ -.
(2.) THE opposite party pleaded as follows: The staff of the opposite party while taking the meter reading relating to the service connection No. E -68 found the meter reading at 6600 Units. Since the previous reading was 6515, the complainant had consumed 85 units thereafter and the same was recorded in the consumption card. After that, till 18.8.1997, the complainant had consumed 30 units. It is not true to say that on 24.7.1997 the meter showed only 6624 units. It is also not true to say that on 24.7.1997 the complainant wrote to the opposite party about the wrong entry in the card. No such letter was received. The opposite party received only the complaint sent to the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu which was forwarded to them for necessary action. On receipt of the said complaint, the opposite party sent a suitable reply to the complainant. Since the complainant was out of station on the date during the relevant period, the electricity was not used for four months. The minimum charges of Rs. 20/ - was collected from the complainant during that period. The concerned staff member has recorded the actual units. The meter was found in order. Since the complainant had not remitted the amount for 85 units, the service connection was disconnected. The opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. The complaint is not maintainable and hence the opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
(3.) THE lower Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has now come forward with the present appeal. The complaint is in effect laid questioning the liability of the complainant to pay the electricity charges as claimed by the opposite party. According to the complainant, there was a mistake committed by the staff of the opposite party and that when the meter read as 6624 they recorded it as 6615 and calculated the units consumed by the complainant as 85 units and called upon him to pay the same and, therefore, it is wrong. It will not amount to a case of deficiency in service. If there has been any mistake in the meter or in the reading, the complainant has to pursue his remedy available under the Indian Electricity Act or he has to approach the Civil Court. By this, the complainant is directly or indirectly questioning his liability and the quantum of consumption. For the hiring of service by him, admittedly, the opposite parties are supplying him energy and were supplying it till the same was disconnected. Therefore, in the garb of allegation of deficiency in service, he cannot question his liability or the quantum of consumption.;