DOF.17.09.2009
DOO. 20.07.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this, the 20th day of July 2011
CC.249/2009
Smt.Suchithra Sekhar,
“Suchee”, Burnacherry,
Kannur 13. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.P.N.Nambiar)
1. Asst. Engineer,
Electrical Section, Burnacherry
Kannur.
2. Deputy Chief Engineer,
Electrical Circle,
Vydhuthi Bhavan,
Kannur 2.
3. Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhuthibhavan,
Pattam,
Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite parties
(Rep. by Adv.T.Sarala for Ops 1 to 3)
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order to cancel the arrear bill and to refund `3000 as already paid together with compensation amount of `50,000 and a sum of `2,000 as costs.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is a resident of house No.91/C of Cantonment, Cannanore Burnacherry. Consumer number allotted to the residence is 2712 and tariff allotted is LT-IA single phase. Metre readings were taken regularly and bills issued by 1st opposite party. To the utter shock of the complainant 1st opposite party issued a bill dt. 9.6.09 for an amount of `16,644 the meter reading to the period of consumption or the rate has not been shown in the bill. There was no outstanding amount to be paid. On 4.8.09 another bill for `16943 was issued to the complainant, were in the charge for usage of current was only 338.83. 2nd Opposite party sent a reply to the complainant dt.19.8.03 asking the complainant to pay the arrears in one lump or in five installments. The reply was merely justifying the action of 1st opposite party. There were no reasons for the arrear bill and its details. Complainant was compelled to pay 1st instalment `3,000 in order to avoid the disconnection. The connection of the complainant was only a domestic single phase connection and she had not used the same for any other purpose. The readings were taken regularly by 1st opposite party and bills issued which was paid by the complainant in time and there is absolutely no reason for any arrears. The opposite parties cannot unilaterally charge the consumer without letting them to know the reasons and giving an opportunity to be heard as required by rules and regulations. It is true that the people of the locality interested in tourism promotion have put up some boards to assess the scope for tourists. However the complainant did not register her name in tourism department. Opposite party penalized the complainant only on some suspicion that the premises had been used for accommodation of tourists. Complainant did not use the electric connection for other than her own personal use. Even the board put up was removed by her. Action of the opposite parties is unilateral and arbitrary by which the complainant has suffered great mental agony and inconvenience. Thus the opposite parties are liable to give compensation and refund the amount paid by the complainant. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance of the notice opposite parties filed version jointly. The brief contentions of opposite parties are given as follows: Complainant is not a registered consumer. The connection provided to consumer Number 2712 was a single phase service connection. It is true that a final bill for `16644 was issued to the consumer on 9.6.09. An inspection was conducted by the Vigilance squad of KSEB Anti Power Theft Squad on 4.4.09 and an unauthorized load of 5 KW was detected in the premises of the consumer and also noticed that a name board was installed in front of the house scribed as “Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry”. The board was put up to attract the tourist. Complainant misused the connection for this purpose which comes under unauthorized use of electricity as per section 126 of Electricity Act 2003.Hence a bill provisional assessment for 16644 was issued to the consumer with a notice to remove the unauthorized additional load. Sufficient time was given to consumer for filing objection if any. But no objection filed within the time. Hence provisional assessment bill was finalized and issued on 9.6.09. Consumer did not pay the bill. So the dues were carried over to the subsequent bill of 8/2009. There after complainant requested for instalment facility whereby 5 instalments were allowed. Complainant paid 1st installment on 28.8.09. The connection was provided for domestic purpose, but the complainant misused the connection for commercial purpose.The inspection conducted in the premises of the complainant and preparation of the Mahazar was in the presence of complainant. The copy of the Mahazar was supplied to the complainant. But she had not given any complaint. Complainant admitted in her letter dated 8.6.09 addressed to the Deputy Chief Engineer that she was interested in Tourism and to attract guests. It is true that she had also submitted that she will withdraw from the activities especially home stay. The complainant has additional connected load without any information to the authorities. It comes under the unauthorized use of electricity as per electricity Act. These opposite parties acted only as per rules in force. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in
the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, DW1 Exts.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B9 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Issue Nos.1 to 3
The case of the complainant is that tariff allotted to her number LT-IA is single phase. Metre reading is taken regularly and bills issued by 1st opposite party up to date. There was nothing outstanding. Surprisingly opposite party issued a bill dt.9.6.09 for `16644 without mentioning the period, meter reading and load etc. Another bill also issued dt.4.8.09 for `16943 subsequently she was asked to pay the arrears in one lump or in 5 installments. Complainant compelled to pay 1st instalment `3,000 in order to avoid disconnection. Further case of the complainant is that certain people of the locality interested in tourism promotion as put up some board to assess the scope for tourism Some of them registered their name with tourism department. Since the complainant did not like the idea she removed the board kept in the premises of the complainant. She has not registered her name with the tourism Department. Opposite party issued excess bill merely on the basis of suspicion. Complainant further stated that she did not use the connection for any other purpose than that of her personal needs.
On the other hand the case of the opposite parties is that an unauthorized load of 5 KW was detected in the disputed premises of complainant by Anti Power theft squad and also noticed a board scribed as “Suchee Home stay, Burnacherry” in front of the house. This misuse of connection comes under unauthorized use of electricity and thus resulted in issuing the disputed final bill for `16644.
The main point that has to be looked into is whether the complainant has misused the electricity connection or not. The fact of the case reveals that a board scribed as “Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry” in front of the house was erected by the complainant. Opposite parties case is that the board was intended to attract tourists. The complainant has misused the electric connection for providing accommodation to these tourists. Complainant has admitted the fact that Tourism Promotion activities had been taken place in the locality of her residence and certain people put up some
boards. The contention of opposite parties that the name board was installed in front of the house scribed as ‘Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry’ and it was intended to provide accommodation to the tourists etc. were not denied by the complainant. Anyhow complainant has admitted that a board was installed in front of the said house. It is certain that the purpose for which the board was installed was to attract the tourists.
Complainant has a case that complainant was not willing for the idea to tourism activities and the board kept in the premises was removed by her. At the same time the contention of opposite party is that on 4.4.09 the Anti Power theft Squad noticed the board - “Suchee Home Stay, Burnacherry’ and it was intended to provide accommodations to the tourists etc. has not been specifically denied by the complainant. Ext.B3 reveals that the complainant herself put up the said board since she was interested in tourism. It is to check whether she will get the guests. Ext.B3 is a letter written by the complainant to the Deputy Chief Engineer Electrical Section. It is clearly stated in the letter that “I am interested in Tourism and the concerned authority told that I can run a house stay in our house. I did not register my name for house stay with the Tourism department. I simply erected a board recently just to check whether I will get the guests. The authority mentioned above has not been included in the party array. Ext.B3 also stated thus “I assure you sir, I withdraw myself from these activities especially home stay”. So removal of board as well as withdrawal from the activities including home stay has occurred only after the action initiated by electricity board. The involvement of complainant in taking part tourism activities by putting the board and readiness to provide home stay facility is undoubtedly proved by Ext.B3, the letter of complainant herself. Ext.B1 is the site mahassar in which complainant made endorsement to the effect that she had read over the contentions of Ext.B1 and copy of the same received. It was dt.4.4.09. The provisional assessment bill was issued on 9.6.09 and dues were carried over to the subsequent bill 08/09. Ext.B2 dated 28.8.09 shows that complainant has requested the opposite party to allow her monthly installment and remit the amount of `3340 as first instalment. It is pertinent to note that there was no whisper in Ext.B2 with respect to any sort of disagreement with the assessment of opposite party which was informed by Ext.A4. Ext.A4 was referred in Ext.B2 while requesting for installment. Ext.B2 clearly reveals that the 1st instalment remitted by accepting Ext.A4 without any objection.
Learned counsel for the complainant argued that it is some interested persons in tourism in the locality who has put up the board ‘home stay available’ in front of the house. Ext.B3 letter undoubtedly made it clear that the board was put up by complainant herself. The sentence used is thus ‘I simply erected the board recently’. If that be so how can it be considered that the board is put up by some one else. Ext.B3 unequivocally made it clear that the board was erected by herself. If that be so there is no need to further enquiry to assume that the complainant was interested in tourism, at least in the initial stage. The said mahazar also proves that it is not the board ‘home stay available’ but the board ‘Suchee Home stay’ that was put up on the sight. There is no need to disbelieve Ext.B1, not merely because she had put her signature in Ext.B1, but also for the reason that part of the content had not been denied anywhere even in chief affidavit.
Moreover complainant has admitted in chief affidavit thus: “since the fittings were not sufficient I made some additions with the help of a licensed wireman”. She did not mention what are the additions. But the Mahazar, Ext.B1 prepared by Anti Power Theft Squad has given the list of fittings available in the house. It has specifically stated the connected load was only 200 watts. But the complainant has additional connected load 4626 watts. without intimation to KSEB
Any how the circumstances then existing leads to assume that increase of load might have been intended to facilitated requirements that might arose from the involvement of tourism activities. Complainant admitted in her evidence adduced by way of chief affidavit that she has made some additions with the help of licensed wireman and application has been submitted through him for regularization. It is a fact that opposite party has not specifically denied the filing of application to enhance the connected load. No question has been put to witness on this aspect in the cross examination.
Whatsoever the prime question that has to be considered is whether the complainant used the electricity unauthorisedly. Opposite party contended that the bill issued, on the finding that the complainant consumed more electricity than that of permitted. DW1 adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit thus: “Cu t_mÀUv _o¨n hcp¶ Sqdn-Ìp-IÄ¡v Xma-k-ku-I-c-yw sImSp-¡m³ Dt±-in-¨p-sImv ]cm-Xn-¡mcn Øm]n-¨-Xm-Wv. Cu Bh-i-y-¯n-\p-th-n-bmWv ]cm-Xn-¡mcn A\p-h-Zn-¨-Xn-epw IqSp-X Idâv D]-tbm-Kn-¨Xv” The specific contention of opposite party is that Ext.A2 for a sum of `16644 has been issued on the basis of over consumption of electricity. So it is essential to find the truth whether the complainant has consumed electricity over and above permitted to be consumed. The available documents reveal the fact that the consumption of electricity before and after the inspection of the Anti Power Theft squad remains more or less same. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by 1st opposite party dt.4.4.09 for a sum of `485 consumption shown is 221 units. Ext.A2 dt.9/6/09 issued without recording the meter reading. The details of the bill shown are fixed charges `6000, energy charges `9676 and duty `968.which together comes `16644.Consumptiondetails in the bill kept fully blank, why it has kept blank is not explained anywhere, even though complainant pleaded the same. The complainant alleged that in respective bill the period, meter reading and rate etc. were not shown.Ext.A2 dt.9.6.09 issued after 2 months of Ext.A1. No reading of consumption of electricity has been shown in it. What does it mean it is unfair and opposed to law. If the consumption unit has been given it can be ascertained whether the complainant has over consumed the electricity or not. Since reading of consumption has not been given, it is difficult to understand such huge amount is intended to be levied on the basis of consumption of electricity. It is pertinent to note that the column energy consumption also has been left blank. Ext.A3 dt.4.8.09 issued after two months energy charge is shown `296.80. The present reading of the meter on 4.8.09 shown as 2869. Previous meter reading shown as 2607 and consumption is 182 units. Ext.A6 is the bill issued for an amount of `380. It is undoubtedly makes it clear that the consumption before and after the inspection remains more or less same. Ext.A4 letter dt. 19.8.09 informs that opposite party has been done detailed enquiry and verified entire documents. It is also informed that the consumption pattern had analyzed and convinced that the bill issued is legitimate. It is a notable point that opposite parties kept mum throughout with respect to the average consumption of the complainant; opposite party did not adduced evidence to prove that there is over consumption on the part of complainant. In cross examination DW1 deposed that “ ]cm-Xn-¡m-cn-bpsS D]-t`#Kw IqSn-tbm-sb¶v dnt¡mÀUv ]cn-tim-[n¨v t\m¡-Ww”. That means opposite party is not sure whether the consumption is increased or not. If it is used for commercial purpose there shall be undoubtedly a record of increased consumption. Increased consumption or over consumption has not been seen recorded anywhere or proved by the opposite party.
It can be seen that opposite party mainly concentrated to establish that the connected load of the consumer was only 200 watts and the complainant had additional connected load of 4626 watts. without any intimation to KSEB. The facts and circumstances quite clearly prove that there is additional connection load. It is possible to regularize the unauthorized load on proper application. Complainant has a case that she had submitted an application through the licensed wire man, which is not denied by the opposite parties. As per section 50(6) of KSEB, Terms & conditions of Supply, 2005 it is stated that the assessment shall be made at a rate equal to one and half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified. In sub section 50(5) is specified to the effect that the unauthorized additional load in case of LT/HT/EHT consumers shall be penalized as per clause 50(5) and (6) of Kerala State electricity Board terms and conditions of supply, 2005. Any how opposite parties had not taken much interest to place materials before the Forum so as to prove the over consumption on the part of complainant. The circumstances reveal that there was some movement of Tourism activities where in the local masses had been attracted. Involvement of complainant to certain extent is also clear and it seems to be quite natural in the given circumstances, but there is no evidence to show that she has given accommodation to tourists and over consumed electricity. It cannot be denied that she might have thought of great prosperity out of the tourism promotion in her locality. At any rate it was not a lasting desire and she herself removed even the erected board in front of her residence after receiving notice sent by the opposite party. Removal of the board also has not been denied by the opposite parties. Proving all over consumption is purely a matter of document but opposite party failed to prove this aspect before the Forum either over consumption of electricity or else accommodation having been provided to tourist. Hence it is unjustifiable to conclude that there was misuse or unauthorized use of electricity, even if there is additional connected load.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that this is a fit case wherein complainant deserves for a lenity for an opportunity to be heard and for reconsideration. Thus it is ordered to cancel the arrear bill ExtA2 and A3 and taking into consideration the average consumption of electricity to reconsider the issue of additional connected load invoking clause 50(5) and (6) of KSEB Terms and conditions of supply 2005. The amount already remitted has to be adjusted in future bills. Thus issues 1 to 3 is found partly favour of complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties
i). to cancel the arrear bill Ext.A2 and A3;
ii) adjust the remitted amount of `3000 (Rupees Three thousand
only) in future bills.
iii) Reconsider the issue of additional connected load invoking
Clause 50(5) and (6) of KSE Board Terms and conditions of
Supply 2005, giving opportunity to complainant to be heard.
However we are not awarding compensation and the parties are directed to bear and pay their own cost in the proceedings.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1 to A3. Bills dt.4.4.09, 9.6.09 and 4.8.09 issued by OP
A4. Letter dt.19.8.09 sent by OP
A5. & A6. Receipts issued by OP
Exhibits for the opposite party:
B1. Copy of the site mahassar
B2 & B3. Copy of the letters dt.28.8.09 and 18.6.09 issued by
Complainant
B4. Copy of the provisional bill issued to complainant
B5 & B6. Copy of demand and disconnection notice issued to
Complainant
B7. Copy of the calculation statement
B8. Copy of the letter dt.4.4.09 sent by AE, APTS Unit, Kannur
to OP1.
B9. Copy of the letter dt.28.8.09 sent to complainant
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party:
DW1.O.P.Kunhiraman
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kannur.
