SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. vs T.N.ROOPALEKHA

APPEAL 790/98 is by the opposite parties 1 to 3 and APPEAL No. 805/98 is by the complainant in O.P. No. 66/98 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. Complainant approached the District Forum with an allegation of deficiency of service and claimed compensation and other reliefs. The complainants sought to challenge the invoice for consumption of electric energy for the premises in question. Opposite parties 1 to 3 issued Ext. P9 additional bill for an amount of Rs. 23,280/-for the period from 2/96 to 6/97 directing to remit the amount on or before 20.2.1998. Then for the period from 9/97 to 1/98 as per spot billing opposite parties 1 to 3 issued Ext. P10 invoice on 4.11.1997. The grievance of the complainant was that without notice the opposite parties 1 to 3 disconnected the supply on 16.1.1998, which the complainant alleged, is unlawful. According to him, the disconnection was postponed till 16.1.1998 to oblige the 4th opposite party, tenant and on account of the same the aforesaid disconnection would amount to deficiency of service and the same is also arbitrary and malicious. The complainant also alleged that on receipt of the Ext. P9 the complainant approached the authorities and, as per Exts. P7 and P8. She was allowed to pay the said amounts in six equal monthly instalments and she has paid the first instalment of Rs. 4,976/-. The complainant maintained that as such she is entitled to the refund of the said amount paid by her and also the compensation of Rs. 5,200/-. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version in which they denied the allegation of the complainant that their action was arbitrary and malicious. They maintained, that the complainant did not intimate the letting of their premises to the 4th opposite party, and that Exts. P9 and P10 were issued for the energy actually consumed by the consumer. They maintained, since the disconnection was made for non-payment of the amount in invoice Ext. P10 dated 4.11.1997. As per Ext. P10 the amount had to be paid within 7 days failing which the invoice itself had intimated that the service connection would be disconnected. Taking into consideration the request of the complainant since instalment benefit was given to the complainant, the complainant cannot have any grievance. The allegation of deficiency of service was denied; they wanted dismissal of the complaint. The 4th opposite party remained ex parte before the District Forum. On the side of the complainant PW1 was examined and on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3 DW1 was examined. On a consideration of the said materials the District Forum found deficiency of service and therefore directed opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 5,000/- and also costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said direction now the opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed APPEAL No. 790/98 whereas the complainant filed APPEAL No. 805 / 98 maintaining that they are not liable to pay the amount covered by the invoice.

THERE being no case that the energy was not used for the relevant period the complainant cannot maintain that the consumer is not liable to pay the invoice amount. The complainant sought to maintain, since the whole energy was consumed by the 4th opposite party, the complainant has to be discharged from the liability to pay the invoice amount. The case of the complainant in this regard is, whereas the opposite party knew that the premises was occupied by the tenant and having served Ext. P10 on 4.11.1997, though the opposite parties 1 to 3 claimed that the connection is liable to be disconnected unless the amount under the invoice is paid from within 7 days from the date of the invoice, the opposite parties 1 to 3 waited till 16.1.1998 so that the tenant could vacate the premises on 1.1.1998. This according to the complainant was a motivated step so as to favour the 4th opposite party and injure the complainant as according to them as per the terms in the agreement of tenancy, the tenant had to pay the energy charges. Thus according to the complainant since said conduct of the opposite parties would amount to active collusion between the employees of the first opposite party and the fourth opposite party, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Even accepting the whole defence as above, that cannot absolve the consumer from the liability to pay charges for the energy consumed. The said aspect, if at all can have relevance in fixing the liability for payment of compensation. Therefore the argument on behalf of the complainant that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount under Exts. P9 and PIO cannot be sustained.

The next question for consideration is, whether there was deficiency on account was the disconnection as well as the aforesaid conduct to the opposite parties. It is urged on behalf of the complainant, that whereas Ext. P9 gave time for payment even after the expiry of the said period, the opposite parties 1 to 3 waited and disconnected the service only on 16.1.1998 and that too without notice. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3 on the other hand would maintain, that the said disconnection was not in any way faulty, as according to the learned Counsel, Ext. P10 notified that unless the amount covered by Ext. P10 is paid within seven days, the service would be disconnected. The period fixed for payment under Ext. P10 expired long before Ext. P9, which is dated 12.1.1998; and Ext. P9 gave time, as indicated early, till 20.2.1998. Then after giving time till 20.2.1998 in Ext. P9 they cannot have normally disconnected the service before 20.2.1998 relying on Ext. PIO. Even assuming that what is mentioned in Ext. PIO would constitute notice, the sequence of events as is revealed from Ext. P9 as indicated above will not confer them with the authority to disconnect before 20.2.1998. Therefore disconnection of the service on 16.1.1998 in the circumstance would constitute deficiency of service. Adding to that conduct of the complainant in waiting till 16.1.1998 after vacating of the premises by the tenant, also would go in support of the grievance of the complainant, particularly in resolving as to whether injury is caused to her. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects, as indicated, in the given circumstance, the same could constitute deficiency of service.

IT is submitted by the learned Counsel of the opposite parties 1 to 3, at any rate, the compensation fixed is on the higher side and it is fixed for an amount beyond the pleading. The learned Counsel relied on para 13 of the complaint in support of his submission, that whereas the complainant quantified the damages at Rs. 2,000/-, the District Forum awarded Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. In answer to the same, the learned Counsel for the complainants 1 to 3 brought to our notice para 12 of the complaint wherein an item of damages is claimed towards another head; there Rs. 3,200/- is claimed as compensation. A combined reading of the said paras would show, the complainant claims damages of Rs. 3,200/-on account of the unlawful disconnection and Rs. 2,000/- towards the inconvenience caused to her due to "the arbitrary and malicious action taken by the opposite parties 1 to 3". Therefore we cannot say that the award of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation is in excess of what is pleaded by the complainants. The District Forum has taken into account the nature of the deficiency due to disconnection as well as the aforesaid delay in disconnecting the service till the tenant, 4th opposite party, vacated. We do not consider that when the whole circumstance is considered against the backdrop of what transpired before the disconnection the quantum fixed is on the higher side. The only other question that remains for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled to more instalment in discharge the amount in the invoices. As already noticed, at the instance of the appellant, the opposite parties allowed the complainant to discharge the amount in six equal monthly instalments. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant, that the amount covered by Exts. P9 and P10 is such that the complainant would not be in a position to discharge the same in six instalments, it is also pointed out, whereas once in six months the reading has to be taken and bill issued invoice being issued for a lump sum amount for a long period would affect the capacity of the consumer to discharge the same in time. Taking into consideration the said aspect also, we consider, that the complainant consumer can be permitted to discharge the amount covered by the invoices in 12 equal monthly instalments. The first opposite party having already paid one instalment, the next instalment shall be paid on or before 5.6.1999. The excess instalment paid shall be adjusted against the succeeding instalment. In view of the said discussion Appeal No. 790/98 is liable to be dismissed and Appeal No. 805/98 is to be allowed in part.

IN the result, Appeal No. 790/98 is dismissed and Appeal No. 805/98, is allowed in part, and the appellant is permitted to discharge the amount in the invoices in 12 equal monthly instalments as indicated above. IN the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs in these appeals. Appeal No. 790/98 dismissed. Appeal No. 805/98 partly allowed.