BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 64/2002

Dated : 16.03.2009

Complainants:

1. N. Krishnan, Con. No. 3904, 'Rohini', Vellayani Junction, Nemom P.O.

    

2. G. Indira Devi, 'Rohini', Vellayani Junction, Nemom P.O.

(By adv. A. Gopakumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Nemom.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Balaramapuram.

    

3. The Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

(By adv. G. Gopidas)

This O.P having been taken as heard on 16.02.2009, the Forum on 16.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide Consumer No. 3904 of Nemom Electrical Section that the said connection was taken to run an oil mill, that there are two motors for the milling purpose with a capacity of 20 HP and 15 HP, that during 04/2000 a notice was served to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party to remit additional cash deposit of Rs. 55,070/-, and that the said notice was challenged vide O.P 235/2000 before this Forum and the Forum ordered to revise the said bill and cancelled the disputed bill. After filing the said complaint, opposite parties had charged the current charge 20% higher than the actual rate from 08/00 onwards due to the grudge of the opposite parties against the consumer. The said higher rate continued till 12/01. During the course of trial in the said OP a letter dated 26.09.2000 of the 1^st opposite party was served to the complainant requesting to prove 2 KVAR capacitor in addition to the existing capacitors. The complainant acted accordingly. Opposite party continued to charge at 20% higher than the actual rate under the industrial tariff. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to charge current charge at normal rate of industrial tariff and to refund the excess amount collected from the consumer from 08/00 onwards with interest of 18% from the date of remittance to the date of refund.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that a notice was served to the complainant demanding additional cash deposit during 04/00 and this Forum cancelled the additional bill and directed the opposite parties to revise the additional bill vide O.P. No. 235/00. During 08/00, it was found that the static capacitor installed for motors to improve the system power factor were faulty. The consumer was directed to rectify the defect. Because of non-function of the static capacitor the consumer was charged 20% higher than the actual charge. The consumer rectified the defect on 12/01 and 20% higher current charge were collected till 11/01. The current charge at 20% higher were charged as per rules. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get current charge at the normal rate of industrial tariff?

    

2. Whether the opposite party has collected excess amount from the complainant?

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of extra amount collected by opposite parties?

4. Reliefs and costs.

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Witness were examined as PW2 and PW3. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.

Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 3904, of Nemom Electrical Section. It has been the case of the complainant that the said connection was taken to run an oil mill, that in the said mill two motors with capacity of 20 HP and 15 HP were installed and current charges were levied under LT IV industrial tariff, that on 04/00 a notice was served to the complainants by the 2^nd opposite party to remit additional cash deposit of Rs. 55070/- on or before 31.05.2000 and that complainant challenged the said notice vide O.P 235/2000 and this Forum cancelled the same and directed opposite parties to revise the additional bill. It has also been the case of the complainant, after filing the said O.P 235/2000, opposite parties had charged current charge 20% higher than the additional rate from 08/2000 to 12/01 due to the grudge of the opposite party against the consumer. It is submitted by the complainant that during the course of the trial in O.P 235/2000, a letter of the 1^st opposite party was served to the complainants requesting to provide 2 KVAR capacitors in addition to the existing capacitor and complainant acted accordingly though there were sufficient capacity of static capacitors in the mill. It has been rebutted by the opposite parties by submitting that during 08/00 it was found by the opposite parties that the static capacitor installed for motors to improve the system power factor were faulty, that immediately the consumer was directed to rectify the defect, that because of the non-functioning of this static capacitor the consumer was charged 20% higher than the actual charge, that the consumer rectified the defect on 12/01 and 20% higher current charges were collected till 11/01 and that the excess amount collected during 12/01 were adjusted in subsequent current charges and no penalty charges were collected from 01/02 onwards. Ext. P1 series(19 Nos.) are monthly invoices from 07/00 to 01/02. Ext. P2 is the letter No. 3 C/2000-01/26.09.2000 of the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Nemom addressed to consumer No. 3904, requesting to provide a capacitor of 2 KVAR more. Submission by the complainant is that in pursuance of Ext. P2 letter, a capacitor of 2 KVAR capacity was purchased by the complainant by Ext. P3 bill dated 30.09.00 and installed in the premises and informed the same to opposite party vide Ext. P4 interim fee receipt dated 31.10.2000. Submission urged by the complainant is that if a capacitor already installed in the premises was not functioning from 08/00 onwards it would have been definitely mentioned in the Ext. P2 letter dated 26.09.2000 by the 1^st opposite party and that no intimation or notice about the failure of capacitor was received by the complainant till the filing of the version by the opposite parties. On a petition filed by the complainant, opposite parties have produced Exts. P6 to P8. Ext. P6 is the inspection report submitted by the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Nemom. It is stated in Ext. P6 that the metering equipments of consumer No. 3904 (LT IV) was inspected by the Sub Engineer on 11.08.2000. The two numbers capacitor units each of 5 KVAR rating installed for power factor improvement were checked and found that one 5 KVAR rated capacitor was only drawing below 1A in 2 phases instead of rated 6 Amps. This capacitor unit was suspected faulty and to be replaced/rectified. Ext. P7 is the copy of the test report(duplicate). In Ext. P7, at the bottom, it is stated that the copy of the duplicate (Ext. P7) has to be sent to Electrical Inspectorate. Ext. P8 is the copy of the report dated 05.12.2001 submitted by the Sub Engineer. It is seen stated in Ext. P8 that the capacitor units of consumer No. 3904 inspected by the Sub Engineer and it is found that all the three units of capacitors are drawing the rated current which is specified in the name plates. The Sub Engineer has been examined by the complainant. In his examination Sub Engineer admitted the signature seen in Exts. P6 to P8. When asked Sub Engineer about which capacitor was defective, he replied he did not note it in Ext. P6 and P8 nor did he mention its batch No. in the exhibits. Sub Engineer deposed that he had informed the complainant about the defective capacitor on the spot itself. But no material on record to show that opposite party had informed the complainant about the defective capacitor. Sub Engineer has deposed that one letter dated 26.09.2000 was issued to the consumer. The letter mentioned by him is with respect to Ext. P2. Ext. P2 reads as under: “As per your oral enquiry, on 25.09.2000 it is to inform you that the total connected load of your installation is 32 KW and your installed power capacitor is only 10 KVAR which is inadequate. Hence you are requested to install additional power capacitor of 2 KVAR and regularize the load through an authorized electrical contractor at the earliest. You are also requested to install ammeters of sufficient rating for capacitor to show proper functioning of the capacitors. It is pertinent to point out that nowhere in Ext. P2 is it mentioned about the defective capacitor”. Sub Engineer further deposed that he did not exam the condenser to verify whether there was balanced load. He would depose that 3 phase motor will not work without balanced load and that the motor will work even if when capacitor was defective. As per Ext. P7 test report(duplicate) a copy of the test report has to be sent to the District Electrical Inspectorate. The District Electrical Inspector has been examined as PW3 by the complainant. On seeing Ext. P7 test report, PW3 has reported that he did not get the copy of the test report. He further deposed that in Ext. P7 there were no name plate details to identify the capacitor. If consumer demands the capacitor will be examined in the laboratory at the Electrical Inspectorate. PW3 further deposed that capacitor could be examined without sending it to Lab, but correct report could be obtained only through lab test report. In cross examination, PW3 replied that the meter in the instant case was not tested in his lab. In re-examination PW3 replied that even in test report it did not mention the name of the person who tested it. Main thrust of argument advanced by the complainant was to the effect that the inspection report is a submission made by the Sub Engineer before the Assistant Engineer, that the name of the personnel who has tested the unit has not been stated in the test report, that there are three phases in the system of supply at 440 volts. The rated amps of each phase is 6 amps at the rated voltage of 440 volts, that if the voltage of the supply is less than 440 volts, the value of current in amps will also be less. In this case the voltage of each phase of the supply at the time of testing of current was not taken and recorded in the report. Submission by the complainant is that variation of voltage in the supply system will affect the reading of current in amps, that without voltage measurement no decision about functioning of capacitor can be taken, whether it is faulty or not, and that if it was faulty no reading will be recorded in the ammeter. It is to be noted that in the report it is stated that it is suspected faulty. This was only a suspicion of Sub Engineer. The Sub Engineer himself has not confirmed it. The both authorities had taken no steps to inform the consumer and test it further in a highly equipped standard laboratory. Though each capacitor unit has separate serial number and manufacturing number and also name and address of the company, to identify the particular unit, no identification was marked in the report and no copy of the test report was sent to the electrical inspector. Hence the veracity of the test report remains challenged. It is further to be pointed out that if one unit of 5 KVAR capacity was actually found faulty, the 20% increase of current charge would be proportionate to the faulty unit. Since there were two units of 5 KVAR each and 1 unit of 2 KVAR 5/12 part of 20% extra would have been charged, but opposite party had charged 20% extra to the entire charge of fixed charge and energy charge. Opposite parties did not furnish any document to prove otherwise. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find complainant is entitled to get current charge at the normal rate of industrial tariff. As per Ext. P1 series (invoices) the actual fixed charge as on 08/00 was Rs. 35 per KW and energy charge Rs. 2.20 per unit. Submission by the counsel appearing for the complainant is that opposite party had charged Rs. 42/- per KW as fixed charge and Rs. 2.64 per unit as energy charge respectively from the complainant from 08/00 to 11/01 instead of noting 20% extra due to failure of capacitor in the invoices. From 09/01 onwards hike in tariff was implemented by the Board. Submission by the opposite party is that because of non-functioning of the static capacitor the consumer was charged 20% higher than the actual charge, but nowhere in Ext. P1 series (invoices) 20% extra has been mentioned by the opposite party. The reason for 20% extra charges collected from the consumer as pleaded in the version, was not substantiated by opposite parties with cogent and convincing evidence. Collection of extra charge without sufficient reason would amount to deficiency in service. Complainant is entitled for refund of excess amount collected from the consumer from 08/00 to 11/01.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall refund 20% extra charges collected from the complainant from 08/00 to 11/01 as per Ext. P1 series (invoices) to the complainant. The said extra charges shall carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of remittance to the date of refund. Opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1000/- as cost of the complaint. Period of compliance is two months from the receipt of this order.

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 day of 16^th March 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 64/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW2 - Ajayakumar V.S

PW3 - Premachandran. B

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original invoices (19 Nos.)

P2 - Letter No. 3C/2000-01/26/09/00 of Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, Nemom.

P3 - Cash Bill No. 2535 dated 30.09.2000 of Sree Bindu

Electricals, Tvpm.

P4 - Receipt of application fee vide receipt No. 136 dated

31.10.2000 issued from Electrical Section, Nemom.

P5 - Copy of letter dated 22.01.2002 sent to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Nemom.

P6 - Inspection Report of Industrial con. No. 3904 dated 11.08.2000

P7 - Photocopy of test report of service connection No. 3904.

P8 - Copy of submission dated 05.12.2001.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT