BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 220/2008 Filed on 03.10.2008 Dated : 06.02.2010 Complainant:
Joy K. Johnson, Accountant, C.S.I. Kuttaninnathil Church, Poovar P.O- 695 525.
Opposite parties :
The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Poovar P.O.
(By adv. S. Balachandran)
This O.P having been heard on 01.02.2010, the Forum on 06.02.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The complainant in this case is the C.S.I. Kuttaninnathil Church, Poovar. The consumer No. is PR 316. The complainant states that they have remitted the bill punctually till 23.06.2008 to the opposite parties. On 23.06.2008 the opposite parties issued a bill of Rs. 9,120/- for the consumption of electricity for the period from 12/2001 to 04/2008. In furtherance of that bill the complainant approached the opposite parties to enquire about the bill, the opposite parties informed that actually complainant has to pay Rs. 560/- per month instead of paying Rs. 320/- per month. Accordingly the complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs. 9,120/- to the opposite parties. This amount is due to the arrears of 7½ years. The complainant informed the inability to pay the huge amount at one time to the opposite parties. Then the Deputy Engineer, Kattakkada Electrical Circle allowed the complainant to pay the amount in 6 equal instalments. The 1st opposite party imposed Rs. 812/- as surcharge on the above said amount. As per the complainant it is the default of the opposite parties to issue such a huge bill even after the lapse of 7½ years. Hence the complainant prayed for the cancellation of the bill for an amount of Rs. 9,962/-. The opposite parties in this case K.S.E.B filed their version contending the allegations of the complainant. In their version opposite parties stated that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum that the complainant is not a consumer and also they stated that against the issuance of the bill there are statutory provisions in the Electricity Act 2003 for preferring Appeal and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The opposite parties stated that consumer No. PR 316 was actually a single phase consumer and it was converted to 3 phase as per the request of the complainant and on remittance of necessary OYEC amount with effect from 21.12.2001 and the connected load was enhanced to 6300 watts. The consumer who is under VII A tariff having a connected load of 6300 watts has to remit an amount of Rs. 560/- bimonthly as fixed charges as per tariff order. But ignoring the change of phase and enhancement of connected load by mistake the consumer has been charged only with Rs. 320/- and bimonthly bills were issued. There is a short collection of Rs. 240/- per spot bill for the period from 12/01 to 04/08 amounting to Rs. 9,120/-. The due date of payment of the bill was 08.07.2008, the consumer approached the 2nd opposite party only on 01.09.2008 with the complaint after 2 months from the date of payment without surcharge. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kattakkada was approached by the consumer only on 27.08.2008 for instalment facility and 10 instalments were granted. As the consumer belated the payment of the bill the consumer was charged with surcharge as per rules. The opposite parties further stated that had he availed the instalment facility within the due date of payment, surcharge should not be collected from the consumer. From the above mentioned reasons the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant in this case is the Accountant of the C.S.I Church, Kuttaninnathil. The Church committee authorized him to file this complaint and conduct the further proceedings. He has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. Exts. P1 to P3 were marked. The opposite party cross examined him. Opposite parties have no oral evidence. They produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 and D2. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that opposite parties issued bimonthly bill at the rate of Rs. 320/- and the complainant paid the amount promptly. But actually the complainant has to remit an amount of Rs. 560/- bimonthly as fixed charges as per tariff order. But ignoring the change of phase and enhancement of connected load by mistake the consumer has been charged only with Rs. 320/-. On 23.06.2008 the opposite party had issued a bill for Rs. 9,120/- for the payment of arrears from 12/01 to 04/08 i.e; for a period of 7 ½ years. The issuance of this bill for the long lapse of 7½ years is the wilful latches and negligence of the opposite parties. In the version the opposite parties admitted their fault and they stated that they granted time for the complainant to pay the amount in 10 instalments. But the complainant belated the payment of bill, hence they charged surcharge on the bill amount. Bill dated 23.06.2008 is marked as Ext. P1. As per this bill, bill amount is Rs. 9,120/-, balance FC for the period 12/2001 to 04/08 and last date of payment is 08.07.2008. Ext. P2 is the letter issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant informing the complainant to remit the amount at an early date and to avoid disconnection. Ext. P3 is the letter issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer to the complainant informing to remit the amount in 6 equal monthly instalments. Ext. D1 produced by the opposite party is the service connection register regarding consumer No. 316. Ext. D2 is the request submitted by the complainant before the opposite parties on 27.08.2008 to give exemption from the payment of the disputed bill. From the above mentioned evidences and pleadings we find that there is negligence from the side of opposite parties to issue bill for actual consumption and tariff. The opposite parties issued bimonthly bill at the rate of Rs. 320/- instead of issuing Rs. 560/-. There was a short collection of Rs. 240/- per bill for the period from 12/01 to 04/08 amounting to Rs. 9,120/-. They issued the bill on 23.06.2008 after the lapse of a long period of 7 ½ years. As per the complainant this bill is a huge burden. It is very difficult to remit such a huge amount immediately. As per the complainant, they have been paying the amount correctly. It is an unforeseen burden to them. If the opposite parties had issued the actual bill in time the complainant could pay the amount without default and the complainant would not have been burdened with such a huge amount. Due to the deficient and negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant had to face this situation and asked to pay such a huge amount at one time. It is true that the opposite parties granted instalment facility to pay the amount and for that purpose they added surcharge of Rs. 812/- on that amount. It is not justifiable on any account. From the above said discussions we are of the view that it is reasonable to allow the complainant to pay the bill amount dated 23.06.2008 in 10 equal monthly instalments from 01.04.2010. This Forum direct the 1st opposite party to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. This amount can be adjusted in the bill amount. Hence the said amount of Rs. 3,000/- is deducted from the bill amount of Rs. 9,120/- and accordingly the complainant is hereby directed to remit Rs. 6,120/- to the opposite parties in 10 equal monthly instalments from 01.04.2010.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 6th day of February 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 220/2008 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Joy K. Johnson II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of bill dated 23.06.2008 P2 - Photocopy of the letter issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 02.09.2008. P3 - Photocopy of the letter dated 02.09.2008.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Photocopy of the service connection register.
D2 - Photocopy of the letter dated 27.08.2008
PRESIDENT
jb
| 
