IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE   7^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

        Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

        Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

    CC.No.61/2016

N.Viswambharan,

Viswavihar UPS Jn.,

Edamon P.O.,

Punalur 691307.                                                                  :           Complainant

V/S

1.    AE, KSEB Electrical Section,

                KSEB, Thenmala 691308.

             (By Adv.Thattamala M.Navas)

2.    The Secretary,

              KSEB HQRS, Thiruvananthapuram                               :          Opposite parties

    ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.Sc, LLB, Member

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant is a 75 years old disabled person suffering from various ailments.  He is a consumer of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties under Electricity  consumer No.3776.  It is further alleged that on 23.11.2015 the complainant has sent a registered letter to 1^st opposite party under postal registration No.ARL 324052116 though the same has been received by 1^st opposite party, he didn’t take any action.  Again on 28.11.2015  the complainant has sent a another letter by registered post to the 1^st opposite party but though it was received there was no response from the 1^st opposite party.  On 28.11.2015 the complainant has received an electricity bill for deposit (provisional) under article 126 of the Electricity Act by stating that the last date of payment is on 30.11.2015, without providing the 7 days period to be usually given to  any consumer for its payment as per the act.  Further it was mentioned in the bill details that the fixed charges Rs.240/- and energy charge Rs.6169.42/- and he has to pay total Rs.9,409/- whereas the total amount comes only Rs.6,409.42/-.  Thereafter on 2^nd December, 2015 he has received a final bill stating details as fixed charges Rs.240/-, energy charges Rs.6,169.42/- and total Rs.9,410/- whereas the total charges only to be Rs.6,409.42.  Imposing excess amount Rs.3000.58/- by way of energy charges and by failing to provide the required information in time the opposite parties caused mental agony harassment and financial loss to the complainant and which is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  So the complainant is entitled to get compensation Rs.25,000/- and costs which deems fit.  Hence the complaint.

          The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing written version raising the following contentions.  The complaint is not maintainable, either in law or on facts.  By quoting the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Uttarpradesh Power Corporation Limited & others Vs.Anis Ahammed in Civil Appeal No.5466 of 2012 it is stated that the complaint against the assessment made by the assessing officer U/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 is not maintainable before this Forum/Commission, because the alleged bill is issued to the complainant is U/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 for unauthorized use of electricy by him from consumer No.3776 under Thenmala Electrical Section.  Moreover a complaint filed as CC No.291/2015 is pending for adjudication before this Forum and hence this complaint may be stayed as per S.10 of Civil Procedure Code 1908.  On 20.11.2015 while conducting an inspection in the premises of the complainant in his presence by the section squad under 1^st opposite party and detected that he had extended the electricity connection to another independent building situated outside the premises, by looping wire from the meter board unauthorizely and after acknowledging the same with the complainant the opposite parties have issued a bill for Rs.9,410/- along with detailed calculation by registered post to the complainant as he refused to accept the same by hand.  Again on 01.12.2005 the 1^st opposite party sent a final bill for the same account stating to pay the amount within one month as contemplated under the Electricity Act. 2003.  As the electricity Act is a self-contained  Special Act which provides remedies against the assessment this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint hence the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint in limini. 

          It is further contented that when the complainant submitted application for electric connection with opposite parties he had furnished sketch of one building therein along with ownership certificate issued by Thenmala Grama Panchayat .  That the ownership certificate was issued in respect of the building No.TP XI/230 and the sketch contained only one building.  The building No.TP XI/231 is a separate, in dependent building in  their premise to which electric connection was extended unauthorizly by the complainant.  As per Regulation 2(67) of the Kerala State Electric Supply Code 2014 ‘Premises’ include any land or building or structure which is included in the details and sketches specified in the applications or agreements for grant of electric connection.  That the usage of electricity to the building No.TP XI/231 which is 5 meters away from building No.TP XI/230 by looping  wire from the meter board of consumer No.3776 is unauthorized use of electrically as the application does not contain the building number and sketch of that building.  Continuing an illegal act for a quiet long period is not an excuse to take action when it comes to the notice of the authorities but they have liberally issued penal bill only for a period of 12 months.  As alleged in the complaint the 1^st opposite party has no enimity towards the complainant that he is only exercising his duty with due diligence.  There is no unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties as it is not a trade and no deficiency in service also.  At the time of inspection for transferring the ownership, no such looping was there otherwise it would have been dealt with accordingly under the law.  The complainant is a litigious person and it is pertinent to note that the penalty bill issued to the complainant is neither disputed nor requested to quash in this case.  It is further submitted that the current charge mentioned in the bills dated 23.11.2015, 21.12.2015 as Rs.6,169.42 instead of Rs.9,169.42, but it was  correctly mentioned in the calculation sheet served on the complainant along with the bills.  That the connected load of the consumer was 2566 and the connected load shown in the site mahazar was unauthorized connected load of the building No.TPXI/231.  All the actions taken against the complaint was only after considering the relevant documents and provisions of law.  None of the prayers sought for in the complaint is     allowable. Hence the opposite parties prays to dismiss the complaint with their costs.

          In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?     
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for?
3. Reliefs and Costs?

           The complainant himself has been examined as PW1 and got marked  Ext.A1 to A4 documents.  Evidence on the side of opposite parties consists of oral evidence of DW1 and marked Ext.B1 series documents.  The complainant as well as the opposite parties have filed notes of arguments and also advanced oral argument.

 Point No.1

          According to PW1 he has filed this complaint not against the site Mahazar and the Provisional assessment bill dated 23.11.2015 but against the inaction on the side of opposite parties 1 & 2 by not responding in time to his two letters which are marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  The main request in Ext.A1 letter as seen from that letter is to take action after perusing the agreement and transfer document.  Before the said request it is seen that stated that the complainant failed to understand what for this mahazar was made.  The content of A1 letter as seen from the remaining part of that letter would clearly indicate the same was sent expressing his objections against the preparation of mahazar by the squad and against the detection of unauthorized use of electricity.

The prayer in Ext.A2 letter is in respect of the Mahazar and consequent action initiated against the complainant by the 1^st opposite party and also requesting to stop the action and to conduct enquiry in the matter.  PW1 has answered during cross examination that  “ Sn al-ÊÀ {]Imcw issue sNbvX bill \v FXn-sc-btà Cu tIkv( Q) AÃ(Ans) Sn bill amount  hy-X-ymkw h¶p F¶p ]d-ªp-ff XÀ¡ta-à (Q) AÃ(Ans) ]ns¶ F´n-\mWv case file sNbvXXv (Q) unauthorized mahazar s\ Ipdn¨v enquire  sNbvXv ta \S-]Sn ssIs¡m-f-f-W-sa¶pw Cu connection transfer \v ap¼v Xs¶ \ne\n-¶n-cp-¶-Xm-sW¶pw Bb-Xn-\m connection ka-b¯v inspect sNbvXv point calculate  sNbvXn-«p-f-f AXE, AE apX-em-b- Bfp-Isf hcp¯n enquire  sNbvX-Xn-\p-tijw am{Xta Cu tIknsâ apt¶m-«p-ff Xocp-am\w ]mSp-ffq F¶pw ImWn-¨p-sIm­v Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 registered letter Ab-¨n-«p-f-fXpw.”      The above admission of PW1 coupled with the content of A1 & A2 letters would clearly show that Ext.A1 and A2 are against the preparation of site mahazar and the issuance of the disputed bill.  The name of the subject assigned to A1 letter is “site mahazar” and A2 letter is “objection”.  The above names assigned to A1 & A2 letters itself would also probabalise  that the complainant has sent those letters not with an intention to get its reply but to stop further proceedings in pursuance of spot mahazar prepared by detecting unauthorized use of electricity in the house building situated adjacent to his residence and not with the sole of object of getting any reply.  It is further to be pointed out that A1 & A2 are not filed under Right to Information Act to initiate proceedings against the opposite party for non-furnishing any reply to the quarries asked by the complainant. 

          Though the complainant would claim that the allegations in the complaint is not in respect of unauthorized mahazar and consequent bill issued by 1^st opposite party the averments in the complaint and relief sought for would not tally with his claim.  As per paragraph (c ) and (d) of the complaint he has got a case that the bill amount is wrongly calculated and the actual total of the amount shown in the bill including fixed charges for Rs.240/-, energy charge of Rs.6169.42/- .  But the total amount claimed in Ext.A4 bill is Rs.9409.42/- which is prepared by wrongly adding Rs.3000.58/- and under heading ( e) of the complaint the complainant would pray that the above act of the opposite parties directing the complainant to pay Rs.300.58 more than the actual amount and non-furnishing of the reply by AE, KSEB has caused much harassment and financial loss and therefore according to the complainant the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  It is further alleged that the non-taking of any action of the AE, KSEB is a denial of “Sevanavakasam” to the complainant.  Therefore the complainant prays to grant compensation for the tune of Rs.25,000/- and costs of the proceedings.  There is no whisper anywhere in the complaint that the 1^st opposite party has failed to send reply to A1 A2 letter.  It is brought out in evidence through DW1 that the AE, KSEB, Thenmala who is the 1^st opposite party in this case has issued Ext.A4 bill for Rs.9,410/- along with detailed statement of account.  It is true that the amount shown as fixed charge and energy charges would not come to Rs.9,410/-.  But it would come only Rs.6409.42/-.  But in the column against other details it is stated that hni-Z-amb IW-¡pI CtXm-sSm¸w tNÀ¡p-¶p.  But the complainant has not produced that detailed statement of account and at the same time DW1 has produced B1 series documents containing details which indicates how the 1^st opposite party has arrived at the calculated amount of Rs.9,410/- dues of the complainant that statement has been counter signed by the 1^st opposite party also.  Complainant has no case in the complaint or in the proof affidavit that he has not been furnished with the details of calculation as indicated in A4 bill.  By concealing that statement of account the complainant has produced only A4 notice.  In view of the statement of account produced along with the B1 series /A4 notice it is clear that no mistake has happened to the 1^st opposite party in calculating or mentioning the amount Rs.9,410/- .  If at all the complainant is entertaining any grievance against Ext.A4 bill cum disconnection notice issued by the 1^st opposite party he has to approach either before the higher officials of the 1^st opposite party or before the competent authority stated under the Electricity Act and Rules.  Discharging statutory functions by the opposite parties and the non-sending of any reply  to Ext.A1 & A2 letters challenging that functions  cannot treated as deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Points answered accordingly.

Point No. 2 & 3

          On evaluating the entire materials available on record we find no merit in the complaint and the same is only to be dismissed.

          In the result complaint stands dismissed.

          Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 7^th  day of  December 2021.

                                                         S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                               E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-

                                                STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                : N.Viswambharan

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.A1                        : Letter  dated 22.11.2015

Ext.A2            : Letter dated 28.11.2015

Ext.A3                        : Electricity bill details

Ext.A4                        : bill cum disconnection notice issued by the 1^st opposite party

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

DW1               : Ganesh M.

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.B1 series   : statement of account and acknowledge card