OP.815/03
Complainant : U.A.Pappachan, Managing Partner, Ookkens Kopra
center & Oil mills, Edakulam, P.O.Irinjalakuda.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section No.1, K.S.E.B.,
Irinjalakuda.
2. K.S.E.B., rep. by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. M.K.GirishMohan, Thrissur)
OP.867/03
Complainant : U.A.Pappachan, Managing Partner, Ookkens Kopra
center & Oil mills, Edakulam, P.O.Irinjalakuda.
(By Adv.A.D.Benny, Thrissur)
Respondents : 1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section No.1, K.S.E.B.,
Irinjalakuda.
2. K.S.E.B., rep. by Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. M.K.GirishMohan, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
OP.815/03
The case of complainant in OP.815/03 is that the complainant is the consumer of respondents vide consumer No.714. The respondents have issued a bill dated 21/10/03 for Rs.46,043/-. The bill is issued by stating penal assessment against unauthorized additional load detected by KSEB officials. Complainant is running the firm exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. There were other allegations also in the bill in addition to unauthorized additional load. It is alleged that the seal of L&T became damaged, one of the MRT seals of power meter is not seen, capacitor not working and not in good condition. The allegations of respondents are baseless and wrong. The complainant has used only the authorized load of energy. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments in brief are that the complainant is not a consumer as defined by Consumer Protection Act and he is running the business for commercial purposes. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant is an industrial consumer comes under 1st respondent. The connected load registered to the firm is 52KW. The APTS inspected the premises on 20/10/03 and found that one of the seals of L&T are damaged by rust and one seal was not found. So the meter has been tested at TMR Shornur test unit and the result was accepted by complainant also. It was also found that 10KW unauthorized load was used. Even if capacitors were installed they were not working. All these things were intimated to complainant. There are five motors working in the firm of complainant having different capacities. But none of the motors were in working conditions. So as per Clause 40 of the Conditions of Supply, 20% excess charged in fixed charge and current charge. The bill has been issued as per the direction of APTS. It has been issued only to compensate the loss of Board. There were 15 workers in the unit. The complainant is bound to keep the electric meter kept in the premises of complainant. The complainant used to remit fixed charge for 52 KW. But during inspection it was found that 62 KW connected load was using and so Rs.450/- was losing to KSEB. If regularized the complainant ought to have remit Rs.2,790/- per month. The bill is legal and complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. Hence dismiss.
OP.867/03
3.The case of complainant is that the complainant is the consumer of respondents vide consumer No.714. The respondents have issued a bill dated 21/10/03 for Rs.46,043/-. The bill is issued by stating penal assessment against unauthorized additional load detected by KSEB officials. Complainant is running the firm exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment. There were other allegations also in the bill in addition to unauthorized additional load. It is alleged that the seal of L&T became damaged, one of the MRT seals of power meter is not seen, capacitor not working and not in good condition. The allegations of respondents are baseless and wrong. The complainant has used only the authorized load of energy. So the complainant filed OP.815/03 before the Forum. During the existence of injunction order in that case the respondents issued another two bills incorporating amounts in old bills. These two bills are illegal and liable to be cancelled. The complainant after consultation of electrical contractor cured the defects of capacitors and papers submitted to 1st respondent but the respondent did not permit to pay test fees. These acts of respondents are illegal and deficiency in service. Hence dismiss.
4. The counter averments in brief are that the complainant is not a consumer as defined by Consumer Protection Act and he is running the business for commercial purposes. So the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant is an industrial consumer comes under 1st respondent. The connected load registered to the firm is 52KW. The APTS inspected the premises on 20/10/03 and found that one of the seals of L&T are damaged by rust and one seal was not found. So the meter has been tested at TMR Shornur test unit and the result was accepted by complainant also. It was also found that 10KW unauthorized load was used. Even if capacitors were installed they were not working. All these things were intimated to complainant. The complainant filed OP.815/03 and the respondents filed counter and contesting. When inspected the documents of Aripalam Sub Engineer office it was found that the complainant has been deposited additional cash deposit for additional 11KW. But this deposit has been omitted to record in 1st respondent office. So the connected load as per the records of 1st respondent remained 52KW and the APTS was misunderstood that complainant was using 11KW unauthorizedly. So the bill issued for Rs.46,043 stands cancelled and another two invoices issued for Rs.36,917/- and Rs.13,255/- along with a detailed letter dated 10/11/03. The present bills issued are legal and complainant is liable to pay the amount. The Board is entitled to get the fixed charge for 11KW from 7/01 to 9/03. The Board is also entitled to get charges on account of nonfunctioning of capacitors. Hence dismiss.
5. Points for consideration are :
1) Whether the complaints are maintainable before the Forum?
2) If so was there any deficiency in service from the respondents ?
3) Other reliefs and costs ?
6. The evidence adduced consists of in OP.815/03 Exhibit P1 and oral testimony of PW1 and Exhibit R1 and Exhibits P1, P2 and oral testimony of PW1 in OP.867/03. No separate evidence adduced by respondents in this case.
7. The 1st point to be considered is the maintainability of the complaint before the Forum. The respondents stated that the complainant is a commercial consumer running the business for making profit and not for livelihood. The complainant disputed this aspect and stated that he is living from the income derived from this concern and he has no other source of income and this is his livelihood. He is examined as PW1 in both cases and he deposed the income from this unit is the only source of income and he and his family are living out of the income derived from this mill. The respondents alleged that there are 15 workers in the concern but PW1 deposed there are only less than 5 workers and the number is not stated. There are no documents produced to show that there are 15 workers engaged and the income tax paid, sales tax paid etc. Even if the respondents alleged that the complainant is a commercial consumer there is no evidence to prove the same. So both complaints found maintainable.
8. OP.815/03 is filed to set aside Exhibit P1 bill demanding to pay Rs.46,043/-. The respondents filed detailed counter in this case and contested the case. Mean while when OP.867/03 has been filed the respondents have taken a stand that Exhibit P1 bill in OP.867/03 is cancelled and a letter given to complainant to that effect. It is their contention that on 28/6/01 the complainant already been remitted additional cash deposit for additional 11KW but this payment has been omitted to enter in the records of 1st respondent. During cross examination of PW1 the Board put question with regard to cancellation of Exhibit P1 bill. But PW1 answered he does not know the same and he does not remember the acceptance of any cancellation letter. The complaint is filed on 28/10/03 and the deposit was much earlier on 28/6/01. So this is a serious deficiency in service of respondents in non entering the details with the official registers and issuing of bills like Exhibit P1 in OP.815/03. Even if the bills already cancelled by respondents they are entitled to pay compensation for the deficiency in service in OP.867/03. It has stated by complainant that the respondents issued Exhibit P1 and P2 in this case by incorporating the amounts in old bills. It is his case that the capacitors were inspected by authorized electrical contractor and papers were submitted to respondents. He has produced Exhibits P1 and P2 invoices.
9. The complainant is examined as PW1 and he denied that Exhibit P1 and P2 were issued against non functioning of capacitors. According to him after checking bills are issued. It is the case of respondents that as per law they are entitled to impose 20% additional charge for non functioning of capacitors.
10. It is the case of respondents that against non functioning of capacitors 20% of fixed charge and current charge were imposed. According to them since capacitors are not working loss caused to Board and Exhibits P1 and P2 bills were issued. But there is not at all any evidence to see that capacitors are not working. Complainant stated that capacitors were inspected by authorized electrical contractor and papers submitted to KSEB. But no such papers are produced. So there are no evidence at all to show that the capacitors are not working. In the counter in OP.867/03 it is stated that same exhibits were produced but there are no such documents produced from the part of KSEB. They have produced only the mahazar and direction notice of APTS in which mahazar is marked as Exhibit R1. It is also the case of respondents that the meter has been seized and tested at TMR Shornur but no evidence is before the Forum to prove the averments. Since there are no evidence to show that capacitors were not working Exhibits P1 and P2 bills are liable to be set aside.
11. In the result both the complaints are allowed and the respondents are directed to pay compensation for Rs.2,500/- to the complainant in OP.815/03 and Exhibits P1 and P2 invoices are stand cancelled in OP.867/03. There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of September 2011.
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits in OP.815/03
Ext. P1 Notice dtd. 21/10/03
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – M.A.Pappachan
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext. R1 Site mahazar
Complainant’s Exhibits in OP.867/03
Ext.P1 Notice dtd. 4/11/03
Ext.P2 Notice dtd. 4/11/03
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – M.A.Pappachan
Id/-
President
