KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 210/2015
JUDGMENT DATED: 09.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 253/2010 of CDRC, Kottayam)
PRESENT:
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Philip, S/o Chacko, Polacheril House, Kattachira, Kidangoor P.O., Kottayam.
(By Adv. Rajmohan C.S.)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- The Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Ettumanoor, Ettumanoor P.O., Kottayam.
- The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattam Palace P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
JUDGMENT
SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal arose from C.C. No. 253/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (will be referred to as District Commission as short). On 18.02.2015 the District Commission had dismissed the complaint and being aggrieved by the order the complainant came up in appeal.
2. The case as set out in the complaint is as below:
The complainant was having a domestic electric connection bearing Consumer No.12679. Complainant was a non-resident Indian doing business in the USA. He used to stay in his house at the native place only during holidays. The average electricity consumption of the premises was 100 units per month. He was promptly paying the electricity bills. On 21.11.2006 an additional bill for Rs. 6,95,331/- dated 17.11.2006 was served upon the complainant’s brother towards “short assessment due to omission of unit place in the meter reading from 12/97 to 10/03" in respect of the house. Immediately the brother of the complainant applied for the details of the additional bill. But the first opposite party informed that the electricity supply will be disconnected on 17.11.2006 if the amount covered by the additional bill is not remitted. Though the opposite parties alleged that the additional bill was issued due to an error they did not furnish the details of the demand. The opposite parties had not pointed out any specific error in the bills issued after the month of October 2003. Allegedly there was error in the reading from October 2003, but the additional bill was served on 21.11.2006 i.e; after three years which is barred by limitation as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003. Therefore, issuance of the additional bill and the proposed disconnection of supply amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite parties filed a version as discussed below:
The complainant was residing in the premises before leaving to USA and there was huge consumption of electricity for the period from 12/97 to 10/2003 and the mistake was found out in the internal auditing by the Kerala State Electricity Board. The details of the mistake had been incorporated with the version. On 14.10.2004 the Anti Power Theft Squad of the KSEB had inspected the premises and it was found out that the connected load at the premises was 17330 Watts. The reading of the meter at the time of inspection was noted by the inspection party as 201776 and they were also convinced that the meter was functioning properly. They found out that the bills issued to the appellant for the period from 12/97 to 10/2003 were without taking the unit place. Five digits alone were taken though the meter was bearing six digits. From December 2003 onwards bills were issued by taking the six digits in the meter and the consumer had remitted the subsequent bills without any protest. But when a short assessment bill was offered to the occupant of the premises he declined to receive the same for the reason that he was a tenant. Hence the bill was sent by Registered post. There is no deficiency of service. The opposite parties would place reliance on a ruling of our Hon’ble High Court reported in 1995(2) KLT 167 in Southern India Marine Products Ltd Vs KSEB to support their stand in issuing additional bills if a mistake had been noticed. Opposite parties would seek for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Originally the complaint was registered as C.C. No. 245/2006. On 14.05.2008 the complaint was allowed against which the opposite party filed appeal as Appeal No.120/2008. On 07.09.2010 that appeal was allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. Thereafter the District Commission had wrongly assigned a new number to the matter as C.C. No. 253/2010 which ultimately got dismissed.
5. The power of attorney holder of the complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of examination. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. The opposite party had examined DW1 and marked Exts. B1 to B4.
6. In the appeal memorandum the main contention raised is that the claim is barred by limitation as per Sec 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003.
7. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, perused the records received from the District Commission. Our Hon’ble High Court, in a ruling reported in 2009(1)KHC 945 in “Sunderdas. P Vs KSEB and another” had considered the legality of issuance of additional bills as per section 56(2) of the Electricity Act r/w Regulation 36(5) &37(5) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 and came to a conclusion that the revised bills issued on the basis of inspection becomes due when those bills are issued. The interpretation of our Hon'ble High Court does find a place in paragraph 10 of the ruling. In view of the judicial interpretation given by the Hon’ble High Court the additional demand can never be time barred as the dues arose only after issuance of the additional bill. The error in the bills issued were detected by the KSEB and admittedly bills issued after the said period was remitted. The dispute is only with respect to the arrear bills. Since the Judicial pronouncement is specific in respect of the validity of arrear bills no irregularities are seen in the course adopted by the opposite parties. So the contention raised by the appellant is found unsustainable and we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Commission. The District Commission had reached a correct conclusion. We find no merit in the contentions raised in the appeal. Hence the appeal fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs.
AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
