The Consumer Forum has a limited scope of interference in matters of payment of consideration for electricity supply, and disconnection of electricity for non-payment of charges does not constitute an act of deficiency in service.

ORDER :

1. Appellant was the complainant in CC. No. 230/2008 in the CDRF, Thrissur. He was a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant was conducting office of chartered accountant in the room where electricity connection was availed. It is alleged in the complaint that he was paying the current charges regularly. While so, the opposite parties issued notice dated 7.11.2003 demanding Rs. 52,918 as arrears. The notice lacked details so request for details was given to the opposite parties. But there was no response. Hence the complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and filed writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to make available the details. As per the order of the Hon’ble High Court the opposite parties gave a letter in reply along with a statement. The details contained in the statement are baseless. Thereafter the opposite parties issued notice on 6.1.2008 and disconnected the electricity supply on 14.3.2008. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

2. The opposite parties contended before the Consumer Forum that the average consumption in the premises of the complainant during 1994-95 per month was 50 units. It is incorrect to say that the consumption during 1995-96 was erroneously shown as 150 units per month. The electricity connection is in the name of K.O. Chummar. Since office of chartered accountant is functioning in the premises, the tariff comes under VI B. A balance amount of Rs. 2,740 was due from the consumer as on 04/94. Since consumption increased bill for Rs. 2,127 was given during 04/94 to 09/94. A slab card for Rs. 439 was given to the consumer by calculating consumption at 150 units per month during the year 1995-96. During these periods the complainant failed to pay the monthly bills or the additional bills issued to him. The complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court when notice was issued for Rs. 52,918 which fell in arrears. As per the interim order of the Hon’ble High Court he paid Rs. 10,000 on 3.2.2004. No other amount was paid. Hence the power supply was disconnected. Again he approached the Hon’ble High Court and got the electricity connection restored and subsequently filed the complaint which is devoid of merit.

3. Before the Consumer Forum the complainant gave oral evidence as PW1. Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties. As per the impugned order the Consumer Forum held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly dismissed the complaint. The correctness of the order of the Consumer Forum is under challenge.

4. It is pertinent to notice that the complainant has availed the services of the opposite parties in the form of supply of electricity. There is no allegation of deficiency in service in the matter of supply of electricity like low voltage, irregular supply, etc. On the contrary deficiency in service is alleged with regard to disconnection of supply of electricity when payment of the electric charges was defaulted. It is pertinent to notice that in order to sustain a complaint before a Consumer Forum service should have been availed for consideration. The consideration in this case is paid in the form of current charges. Regarding deficiency in service in the matter of payment of consideration, the scope of interference by a Consumer Forum is very limited. The complainant has no case that the opposite parties have over charged him or charged him contrary to any set norms followed for the purpose of supplying electricity. On the contrary when arrears of current charges were demanded he approached the Hon’ble High Court and as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court details of the demand were supplied. The limited allegation is that the details contained in the statement are baseless and not explanatory. Consumer Forums are formed not to supervise the day-to-day functionin