THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.138/2009 Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Santhosh Joseph Vallanttu House, Konippadu P.O Chalamattam, Melukavu. (By Adv. K. Jidhish) Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. Reptd by its Secretary. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Erattupetta. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party having electric connection under LT V Tariff with vide consumer No. 20378. According to the petitioner he said connection is used exclusively for irrigation purpose. Connection is having connect load less than 2 KW. The connection is earlier numbered as Consumer No. 378 and is in existence from the year 1973 onwards. Complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 1280/- and it is a computer generated bill and in the said bill complainant noticed that the connect load of the petitioner is shown as 4 KW and the tariff applied is LT VII A. Petitioner preferred a petition to the Asst. Engineer stating that the connected load of the petitioner -2- is below 2 KW and the applicable tariff is only LT IV. The Asst. Engineer charged Rs. 10/- as application fee and Rs. 25/- was inspection fee. But the opposite party had not taken any steps to redress grievance of the petitioner. On 3..4..2009 petitioner preferred a complaint before the Asst. Engineer, Erattupetta requesting him to change the tariff and connected load of the petitioner and also for refund of the amount collected in excess from the petitioner in his previous bills. On 9..5..2009 petitioner was served with a bill for Rs. 4640/- In the bill it is stated that there is a previous due of an amount of Rs. 3800/-. According to the petitioner he was never a defaulter in paying the monthly electrical bills. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in issuing bill for excess amount for the consumption in a greater tariff is clear deficiency in service. Petitioner also claims refund of the excess amount collected from the petitioner with interest. Petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for Rs. 4640/-. Petitioner demanded refund of excess amount collected by the opposite party he claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party as per the records petitioner is billed under commercial tariff and the connected load is 5 H.P. According to opposite party earlier consumer was numbered as 378 and after computerization the number was converted to a 5 digit one by prefixing 20 to the old number and new number of the consumer is 20378. Bill issued to the consumer under commercial tariff was remitted by the petitioner up to the month of 5/08. The disputed bill is issued for the total amount of Rs. 4640/- as total amount due to the opposite party. Petitioner filed an -3- application for change of tariff on 14..1..2009 and necessary fees were remitted. Based on this the Asst. Engineer made inspection on the premises of the petitioner and found that the connection is used for agricultural purpose. Based on inspection, the tariff of the petitioner is changed from LT VII A to LT V. As per the application Dtd: 3..4..2009 bills issued under LT VII A tariff is revised to LT V tariff. Thus the amount for Rs. 4640/- is revised to Rs. 3080/-. According to the opposite party petitioner had either taken the connection under commercial tariff or it may be changed to the commercial tariff before 14..3..2001. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced a reply given to the petitioner by the PIO under RIT Act said document is marked as Ext. B3. In Ext. B3 as answers to question No. 1 it is stated that an excess amount of Rs. 6937/- was collected from the petitioner. Opposite party as answer to question No. 5 it is stated that the connection is given for agriculture purpose. Opposite party further stated that bill were issued under LT IV, LT VII B and LT VII A. In paragraph 8 of the version opposite party contented that from 14..3..2001 onwards. Connection is billing under commercial tariff and either connection may be taken by the -4- petitioner under commercial tariff or it may be changed to commercial tariff before 14..3..2001. So, from the admissions of opposite party itself it can be seen that opposite party does not know how bills were issued under commercial tariff . Even though in the version they have stated that no amount was collected from the petitioner in Excess. But in Ext. A3 as answer to a question opposite party stated that they collected an amount of Rs. 6937/- as excess. The opposite party has not produced any document to prove that how the tariff of the petitioner was changed from agriculture to commercial. As per the provisions of the electricity act and supply cod their should be an application along with non refundable application fee and other formality for change of tariff. But opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that tariff is changed as per the provisions of law. In our view the act of the opposite party in changing the tariff of the petitioner unilaterally is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for. In the result the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for an amount of Rs. 4640/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to refund the excess amount collected ie. an amount of Rs. 6937/- to the petitioner . Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings of the petitioner. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party can either pay the amounts to the petitioner or adjust in further bills . First opposite party can recover the cost and compensation amount from the concerned employ -5- of the opposite party who committed deficiency in service. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Photo copy of the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for Rs. 4640/- Ext. A2: Copy of the complaint Dtd: 3..4..2009 Ext. A3: Reply letter Dtd: 4..9..2009 issued by the S.S and PIO to the petitioner. Documents for the Opposite party Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 5 cs. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.138/2009 Tuesday, the 30th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Santhosh Joseph Vallanttu House, Konippadu P.O Chalamattam, Melukavu. (By Adv. K. Jidhish) Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. Reptd by its Secretary. 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Erattupetta. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party having electric connection under LT V Tariff with vide consumer No. 20378. According to the petitioner he said connection is used exclusively for irrigation purpose. Connection is having connect load less than 2 KW. The connection is earlier numbered as Consumer No. 378 and is in existence from the year 1973 onwards. Complainant was served with a bill for Rs. 1280/- and it is a computer generated bill and in the said bill complainant noticed that the connect load of the petitioner is shown as 4 KW and the tariff applied is LT VII A. Petitioner preferred a petition to the Asst. Engineer stating that the connected load of the petitioner -2- is below 2 KW and the applicable tariff is only LT IV. The Asst. Engineer charged Rs. 10/- as application fee and Rs. 25/- was inspection fee. But the opposite party had not taken any steps to redress grievance of the petitioner. On 3..4..2009 petitioner preferred a complaint before the Asst. Engineer, Erattupetta requesting him to change the tariff and connected load of the petitioner and also for refund of the amount collected in excess from the petitioner in his previous bills. On 9..5..2009 petitioner was served with a bill for Rs. 4640/- In the bill it is stated that there is a previous due of an amount of Rs. 3800/-. According to the petitioner he was never a defaulter in paying the monthly electrical bills. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in issuing bill for excess amount for the consumption in a greater tariff is clear deficiency in service. Petitioner also claims refund of the excess amount collected from the petitioner with interest. Petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for Rs. 4640/-. Petitioner demanded refund of excess amount collected by the opposite party he claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party as per the records petitioner is billed under commercial tariff and the connected load is 5 H.P. According to opposite party earlier consumer was numbered as 378 and after computerization the number was converted to a 5 digit one by prefixing 20 to the old number and new number of the consumer is 20378. Bill issued to the consumer under commercial tariff was remitted by the petitioner up to the month of 5/08. The disputed bill is issued for the total amount of Rs. 4640/- as total amount due to the opposite party. Petitioner filed an -3- application for change of tariff on 14..1..2009 and necessary fees were remitted. Based on this the Asst. Engineer made inspection on the premises of the petitioner and found that the connection is used for agricultural purpose. Based on inspection, the tariff of the petitioner is changed from LT VII A to LT V. As per the application Dtd: 3..4..2009 bills issued under LT VII A tariff is revised to LT V tariff. Thus the amount for Rs. 4640/- is revised to Rs. 3080/-. According to the opposite party petitioner had either taken the connection under commercial tariff or it may be changed to the commercial tariff before 14..3..2001. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced a reply given to the petitioner by the PIO under RIT Act said document is marked as Ext. B3. In Ext. B3 as answers to question No. 1 it is stated that an excess amount of Rs. 6937/- was collected from the petitioner. Opposite party as answer to question No. 5 it is stated that the connection is given for agriculture purpose. Opposite party further stated that bill were issued under LT IV, LT VII B and LT VII A. In paragraph 8 of the version opposite party contented that from 14..3..2001 onwards. Connection is billing under commercial tariff and either connection may be taken by the -4- petitioner under commercial tariff or it may be changed to commercial tariff before 14..3..2001. So, from the admissions of opposite party itself it can be seen that opposite party does not know how bills were issued under commercial tariff . Even though in the version they have stated that no amount was collected from the petitioner in Excess. But in Ext. A3 as answer to a question opposite party stated that they collected an amount of Rs. 6937/- as excess. The opposite party has not produced any document to prove that how the tariff of the petitioner was changed from agriculture to commercial. As per the provisions of the electricity act and supply cod their should be an application along with non refundable application fee and other formality for change of tariff. But opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that tariff is changed as per the provisions of law. In our view the act of the opposite party in changing the tariff of the petitioner unilaterally is a clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for relief sought for. In the result the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for an amount of Rs. 4640/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to refund the excess amount collected ie. an amount of Rs. 6937/- to the petitioner . Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for the loss and sufferings of the petitioner. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party can either pay the amounts to the petitioner or adjust in further bills . First opposite party can recover the cost and compensation amount from the concerned employ -5- of the opposite party who committed deficiency in service. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Photo copy of the bill Dtd: 9..5..2009 for Rs. 4640/- Ext. A2: Copy of the complaint Dtd: 3..4..2009 Ext. A3: Reply letter Dtd: 4..9..2009 issued by the S.S and PIO to the petitioner. Documents for the Opposite party Nil. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
