BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 16th December 2016
PRESENT
SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HONBLE PRESIDENT
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HONBLE MEMBER
ORDER IN
C.C.No.71/2014
(Admitted on 21.02.2014)
Mr. K V Thomas,
S/o K.V.Vargeesh,
Lavathadka house,
Ichilampadi village and post,
Puttur D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri HKB)
VERSUS
1. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Mescom Sub Division Kadaba,
Puttur D.K.
2. Chief Engineer,
Mescom,
Mangalore 575005, D.K.
…........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 & No.2: Sri.SMB)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE MEMBER
SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against claiming certain relief opposite parties No.1 and No.2 to pay Rs.13600 together with interest as damages.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. K V Thomas affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.C1 to C4 detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. M Suresh Kumar (Rw1) Assistant Executive Engineer also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked as Ex.R1 to R4 detailed in the annexure here below..
The brief facts of the case are as under:
Perused the complaint and the version of the parties. As we understood, This complaint is levelled against the Opposite parties for deficiency in service alleging the Opposite parties have charged penalty for using extra electricity illegally in spite not using extra electricity. The complainant alleges that the Opposite parties without any inspection or investigation charged penalty of Rs 600/ on the ground of excess using of power than permitted. The complainant states he is permitted to use 1000 watts of current but never used more than 1000 watts. The Opposite parties contend that the complainant has a sanction load of 1000 watts but on spot inspection conducted it was found that loading of 1020 watts connected to the meter. Hence as per condition of supply of electricity the tariff and penalty is as per terms and there is no any illegality in the charging of the penalty. This being the dispute in concise, we opine in resolving this dispute the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
We have examined the evidence and the documents produced. The admitted facts are the meter connection to the complainant house under meter No KL 4866 and the sanctioned load is 1000 watts, the Opposite parties charged Rs 600/ on the ground of connected load discovered on investigation is 1020 watts which is in excess. The denied facts are the usage of electricity more than 1000 watts sanctioned, the Opposite parties have conducted the investigation and the charge is legal. It is not denied the complainant as the consumer. Another facts alleged is there are trees which disrupting the electricity frequently which is admitted and also stated to be attended. Since it is not directly connected with the dispute on trial we ignore it. Hence we consider the below POINTS FOR CONSIDRATION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer under Consumer Protection Act 1986?
- Whether the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
We answered the above points after considering the facts and the evidence on record and on hearing the counsels of parties as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
POINT NO 1: It is admitted that the complainant is availing the service of the Opposite parties under meter No KL 4866. Hence there is a relation of consumer and the service provider between the complainant and the Opposite parties. Hence the answer is in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2 & 3: The complainant s specific case is in his words in para 4 of the complaint complainant has been received a notice on 23.12.2013...in this notice it has been directed to the complainant that he has to pay Rs 600 for using additional power unlawfully. And in para 5 that notice is clearly unlawful because the complainant has been permitted to use 1000 (vat) watts of power. However the Opposite parties in the above mentioned notice informed that the complainant has been permitted to use 970 watts and he has used 1020 watts which is addition use than permitted to use to him. This notice is clearly unreasonable. To be more precise what has been alleged by the complainant is the Opposite parties have charged penalty on the ground of the complainant used more electricity power than permitted of 1000 watts as per agreement. The Opposite parties specific contention is they have conducted an inspection in the house of the complainant and came to know that the complainant is connecting load of 1020 watts which is more than sanctioned load of 1000 watts and hence as per slab rate the amount charged for the next slab of 1000 watts to 2000 watts which is Rs 25 per month for preceding 12 months and double the amount as penalty as per notification cited above. (Rs 25.12.2= Rs 600). The Opposite parties state in detail the power appliances loaded are on inspection of the complainant house. Hence charged for the second slab of between 1000 watts to 2000 watts.
On very close observation and critical analysis of the allegation averments and the contesting statements, we conceived that there is misinterpretation and misunderstanding of terminology. What we grasped is the complainant is understood the notice of penalty as it being charged for extra use/consumption of power against allotted power of 1000 watts. Whereas Opposite parties since the beginning of dispute is contending about sanctioned load of 1000 watts for the complainant’s meter. There is fundamental difference between the consumption of electricity power and the loading electricity power. The consumption charges will be as per monthly consumption. Whereas loading is the total watt power of the appliances and equipment connected to particular meter. In the instant case the electrical appliances connected to the meter according to opposite parties is in total 1020 watts. The complainant is not disputing the connected appliances as detailed by the investigating authority as 3 bulbs of 40, 6 CFL of 15 one fan 60 one T.V. 100 and one mixer 650 watts totaling 1020 watts. In turn admitting the loaded watts connected to the complainant meter i.e. 1020 watts. The complainant also admits the sanctioned capacity is 1000 watts but only he is mistaking it as permitted to use 1000 watts. Even if the complainant used 1500 watts there will be consumption charges on unit based monthly charges as per different slabs of units. If the consumption is more there will be more consumption charges but no penalty and it will not be an offence to attract penalty. Connected load is different from the consumed power. The complainant is meaning the penalty as charges for higher consumption but in reality it is charged as penalty for connecting extra load than approved by the Opposite parties which is an offence and liable for penal charges.
The Opposite parties produced the document the Conditions of Supply of Electricity (EX R1) notification and shown the calculation to be adopted as per notification in cases of this kind of extra connected loading. On verification of notification it is found opposite parties calculation is as per rule and there is no wrong method adopted by the Opposite parties in collecting the penalty. with this discussion we land on our considered opinion that the Opposite parties not charged illegally on the usage of power more than 1000 watts permitted to use as alleged by the complainant, but it is as per extra load connected as contended by the Opposite parties. as for as allegation of 970 watts in the notice the Opposite party clarified that it is by mistake and also convinced us that there is no difference in the amount charged between 970 watts and 1000 watts as per said notification. We on examining the document Electricity Tariff 2013( EX R2) Table LT 2(a)(ii) find that the slab price till first KW is 15 and for every additional KW Rs 25/. Hence either 970 or 1000 watts make no difference as for as the complainant case is concerned. The complainant not proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and the point no 2 answered in the negative, followed by the point no 3 also in the negative.
POINT NO 4: In the light of above discussion and the adjudication of points for consideration we pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 8 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 16th December 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI.VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. K V Thomas
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
ExC1: 09.12.2013 : Notice issued by the opposite party
ExC2: : Legal Notice
ExC3: : Acknowledgement ( 2 in nos)
Ex.C4: : Postal Receipt (2 in nos)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1: Mr. M Suresh Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Annexure copy of Conditions of Electricity Supply Distribution Licensees
Ex.R2: Electricity tariff-2013
Ex.R3: 29.11.2013 spot inspection report
Ex.R4: 13.01.2014 Reply given by opposite party to Complainant
Dated: 16.12.2016 MEMBER
