CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                               Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.209/10

                                                             Friday the 30^th day of March, 2012

 

Petitioners                                                        : Lisson Francis,

                                                                           Kavalil House,

                                                                           Ramapuram Bazar PO,

                                                                           Pala, Kottayam.

                                                                           (Adv.Jaison Paliyil)

                                                         Vs.

Opposite party                                                 : KSEB rept by its

                                                                         Secretary,

                                                                         Vaidyudhi Bhavan, pattom,

                                                                         Thiruvananthapuram

                                                                        2) Asst.Exe.Engineer,

                                                                             K.S.E.B, Electrical Sub Division,

                                                                             Ramapuram, Pala.

                                                                        3) The Asst.Engineer

                                                                             Electrical Section,

                                                                             K.S.E.B., Ramapuram.

 

                                                                        ORDER

 

 

            Case of the petitioner, filed on 31/8/10 is as follows:-

            Petitioner is a low tension domestic consumer of the opposite party under LT 1A tariff with vide consumer No.14974. Petitioner is regularly paying, electricity bills issued by the opposite party with any fault. On 18/8/10 a demand notice was issued to the petitioner by the opposite party for Rs. 5147/- being arrears of bill amount. From the disputed bill it can be seen that petitioner is charged under LT -7A tariff. According to the petitioner he was charged in the previous months under LT-1A tariff. According to the petitioner the unilateral change of tariff and issuance of demand notice amounts to deficiency in service. So he prays for cancellation of the bill and a declaration that the change of tariff from 1A to 7A is illegal.                   Petitioner claims cost and compensation.

            Opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Consumer No. 14974 is in the name of petitioner. Bill dtd 18/8/10 is issued under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 for misuse of tariff detected as per the inspection dtd 30/6/10. Petitioner refused to receive the provisional bill. So, final bill was issued to the petitioner under certificate of posing.   According to the opposite party bill issued to petitioner is legal. Change of tariff from LT 1A to LT 7A was shown in the bill. More over petitioner received copy of site mahazar prepared at time of inspection. Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

i)                    Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavits filed by both parties and Ext.A1 and A2 documents on the side of petitioner. Ext.B1 and B2 document on the side of opposite party and Deposition of PW1.

            Petitioner produced disputed bill dtd 16/8/10 said document is marked as Ext.A2. Previous bill, dtd 7/6/10, is produced and same is marked as Ext.A1. In Ext.A2 tariff of petitioner is shown as LT-7A. From Ext.A2 it can be inferred that tariff of petitioner is changed. According to the petitioner Ext.A2 is issued without any legal basis and amounts to deficiency in service..

Petitioner alleges deficiency in service on the following grounds.

a)      Change of tariff is unilateral

b)      Procedure under Section 126 of the Electricity act 2003 is not followed by opposite party

c)      No proper inspection or mahazar is prepared by the opposite party

Counsel for petitioner vehemently argued that after commencement of Electricity Act. No power has been conferred on the board to resolve any dispute with regard to the category under which a particular group of establishments falls. In Sainalabdeen Vs. KSEB reported in 2006/KLT 529 Supreme Court of Kerala categorically declared that the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act 1998 had conferred considerable powers on the State Commission which had the jurisdiction to categories a particular group of establishment falls either or commercial and not state government or the board in fixing the tariff. Petitioner produce the schedule of tariff from 1/1/10. In the said tariff order beauty parlor is not mentioned in LT 7A. LT 7A is in general a commercial tariff. So, without obtaining an approval from Regulatory Commission, opposite party cannot categories a beauty parlor under LT 7A tariff.

 

Counsel for petitioner further contented that procedure under Section 126 Electricity Act 2003 is not followed in this case. As per section 126 a provisional order is to be issued to the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner a final order under Section 126(5) is to be issued. Here according to the opposite party provisional order is issued UCP. But petitioner has not received the same. Copy of the provisional order dtd 30/6/10 is produced and same is marked as Ext.B2. Copy of final order is also produced and the same is marked Ext.B3. Ext.B5 is the copy of UCP dtd 20/7/10. So from Ext.B2, B3 and B5 documents it can be seen that provisional bill is issued after the final order. So the case of the petitioner that opposite party has not followed the provision under Section 126 is correct.

 

Copy of the mahazar prepared by opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 mahazar, nothing is mentioned with regard to the conduct of a beauty parlor, details of items kept, the details of commercial activity carried out in the business premises etc. From Ext.B1 it cannot be inferred that there is a beauty parlor in the premises of the petitioner. So from the evidence on records it can be seen that act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so point no.1 is found accordingly

            In view of the findings in point no.1, petition is allowed. Bill dtd 16/8/10 is cancelled. Change of tariff in LT 1A to LT 7A is declared as illegal. Opposite party is order to issue fresh revised bill instead of the disputed bill under LT 1A tariff to the petitioner. Petitioner is only liable to pay bill amount for consumed energy in LT 1A tariff. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

 

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2012

 

            Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M.Thomas, Member                     Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-bill dtd 7/6/10

Ext.A2-bill dtd 16/8/10

Ext.B1-copy of mahazar

Ext.B2-Copy of bill dtd 30-6-10

Ext.B3-copy of bill dtd 15/7/10

Ext.B4-Letted dtd Nil issued to the petitioner by A.E.Ramapuram.

Ext.B5-copy of receipt dtd 20/7/10

Ext.B6-copyof application submitted by petitioner to the AE

 

 

By Order,

 

Senior Superintendent.