BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No.15/2004 Filed on 13/01/2004

Dated: 15..05..2010

Complainant:

R. Sadasivan, Attuline Kadayara Puthen Veedu, Kochupalli, Pulluvila – P.O.

(By Adv. A. Gopakumaran Nair)

Opposite parties:

1. E. Jinson, The Assistant Engineer, electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam.

2. The Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram–4.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharn Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 27..02..2010, the Forum on 15..05..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. KJM.999 under tariff LT VII A, that the actual load of the presmises is below 1000 watts, that the categorisation of the service connection to the premises is wrong, that due to the non-payment of additional bill, amounting to Rs. 11,762/- for a period of 14 months from 1/97 to 2/98 served during 1/99, service was disconencted by on 11/2/1999, the same was challenged before this Forum vide O.P.No. 276/99, that this Forum directed the complainant to remit the amount on the basis of the test report of the energy meter recorded from the Electrical Inspector and reconnect the service, that accordingly complainant remitted the amount on 23/07/2003 and the service was reconnected on 26/7/2003, that the service was under disconnected status from 11/2/1999 to 26/7/2003 and no invoice or spot bill was served to the complainant for the monthly fixed charge till the notice dated 12/5/2003 for Rs. 44,089/-. Opposite parties sent another notice dated 30/6/2003 for Rs. 43,989/- and a third notice dated 16/12/2003 for Rs.44,460/-. On receiving the said notice a letter was sent to the 1^st opposite party by pointing out the mistake/error in calculating the interest without any demand, that the opposite parties did not take any decision on it, instead opposite parties disconnected the service on 9/1/2004, that the interest and surchage calculated in the said notice is illegal. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to reconnect the service forthwith, to cancel the notice dated 16/12/2003 and to pay compensation and cost to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the service connection to consumer No. KJM.999 stands registered in the name of Sri. Bhaskaran, that opposite parties are not aware about the possession of the premises by the complainant and there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Board, that the complainant had utilized the electric supply for different purposes including 4 shop rooms and for his residential purpose, that the total connected load of the premises comes to 2180 watts and consumer is billing under LT VII A commercial tariff. Complainant had not applied for a reduction in load so far, that the complainant had not raised any disputes in O.P. No. 276/99 regarding the connected load of his premises or the tariff applied. It is true that an additional bill for Rs. 11,762/- was issued to the complainant during the month of 1/99, the excess quantity of energy consumed during the period from 3/97 to 2/98, since the complainant did not pay the additional bill, supply was disconnected on 11/02/99. This Forum dismissed the O.P. No.276/99 with direction to the complainant to remit the amount, that the complainant did not pay the amount till 10/5/2003, a notice for dismantling the service was issued on 12/05/2003 requesting him to remit the amount on or before 22/5/03, that the complainant ignored the notice and service was dismantled on 27/6/2003, thereafter notice dated 30/06/2003 was issued to the complainant to remit the arrears before 10/07/2003 for avoiding Revenue Recovery Action. Complainant remitted the amount on 23/7/2003 and the supply was reconnected on the same day itself, that the complainant has not remitted any amount towards current charges after 12/98 other than Rs. 11,762/- remitted as per the direction of this Forum, that an amount of Rs. 32,798/- is pending as arrears which includes an additional bill of Rs. 4,770/- for the period from 6/98 to 2/99, monthly current charges for the months of 1/99 and 2/99, monthly minimum charges for the period of disconnection from 3/99 to 5/2003 and surcharge for the belated payments, that the complainant is liable to pay the monthly minimum charges for the period of disconnection as per the provisions of the Conditions of Supply Regulations. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get connection to consumer No.KJM.999 restored?

    

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get notice dated 16/12/03 cancelled?

    

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get current charge assessed as per the actual connected load of below 1000 watts?

    

4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and Exts. P1 to P9 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D4.

4. Points (i) to (v) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KJM.999 under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam and the premises is brought under the tariff LT VII A and there was a complaint vide O.P.No. 276/99 before this Forum which was dismissed directing the complainant to remit the adjustment invoice of Rs. 11,762/-. It has been the case of the complainant that his premises is a thatched building consists of 4 small shop rooms – two pan shops, one hair cutting saloon and one shop is permanently kept closed without any light point or any other load – and two rooms with kitchen in the backside of the said shop rooms, that the connected load of all the above said rooms, would come only below 1000w or (1 KW) which includes two tube lights, one bulb and a plug point connected/erected in the two rooms and the kitchen, that the whole consumption recording the energy meter includes the quantum of energy using for residential purpose and that since there is no segregation of energy, the whole consumption of energy is charged under commercial tariff. It has also been the case of the complainant that at present the said premises is brought under the tariff of LT VII (A), which is a commercial tariff applicable to the connected load exceeding 1000 watts, whereas the actual load of the premise is only below 1000 watts and hence the categorisation of the service connection to the premises is wrong. It has also been the case of the complainant that as per the order dated 10/9/02 in O.P.No. 276/99 of this Forum, complainant had remitted the amount of Rs. 11,762/- to opposite parties on 23/7/03 and the service was reconnected on 26/7/03, that the service was under disconnected status from 11/2/99 to 26/7/03 and that fixed charge for 6/03 and 7/03 and fixed charge and energy charge from 8/03 are being paid regularly as per bi-monthly invoices served to him. While so opposite parties sent three notices – dated 12/5/03 for Rs. 44,089/- to him through registered post another notice dated 30/6/03 for Rs.43,989/- and third notice dated 16/12/03 for Rs.32,798/-. Though complainant sent a letter to opposite parties pointing out the mistake or error in the aforesaid notices, no action was taken by opposite parties instead disconnected the service on 9/1/04. Ext. P1 is the notice dated 12/5/03 for Rs.44,089 in which arrears of current charge from 1/99 to 5/03 plus adjusted bills, S/C and RF were included. Ext. P2 is the notice dated 30/6/03 for Rs. 43,989/-. Ext. P3 is the notice dated 16/12/03 issued to complainant requesting to remit Rs. 32,798/-, of which Rs.20,888/- is charged towards surcharge. According to complainant, the said surcharge is illegal, and he is not bound to pay because, no demands of fixed charge were made through monthly invoices/spot bills as and when it became due on every month during the period of disconnection. Further the fixed charge is also calculated for a connected load of 3000 watts instead of below 1000 watts actually connected there. Ext. P4 is the copy of the notice dated 2/1/04 sent by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party stating that the amount calculated in the notice is erroneous. Ext. P5 is the acknowledgement of Ext. P4 notice by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. P6 is the receipt of current charge bill from 1/03 to 9/03 for Rs.640/- dated 31/10/03. Ext. P7 is the receipt of current cahrge bill for 10/03 and 11/03 for Rs.1,072/-. Ext. P8 is the receipt of arrear payment of Rs. 11,862/- dated 23/7/03. Ext. P9 series include bills – bill dated 21/9/05, bill dated 25/7/05, bill dated 26/5/05, bill dated 27/1/05, bill dated 12/11/04, bill dated 23 September 2004, bill dated 2, August 2004. Receipt of current charge dated 1/6/04, bill dated 27, March 2004, bill dated 27, January 2003 and receipt of current charge of Rs.5,055/- dated 9/3/04. On perusal of Exts. P9 series it is seen that 2^nd opposite party has assessed the bill on the basis of connected load of 3kw. Ext. C1 is the report of Electrical Inspector dated 16/12/05. As per Ext. C1 it is seen reported that “the building having a thatched roof situated at Kochupalli Junction in Pulluvila is in a dilapidated condition. There are 7 Nos. of small shops and a house, Most of the shop occupants were not available at site and shops were kept locked, All wiring are done in a temporary manner. The complainant had been asked to make arrangements for making the measurement of total connected load of consumer No. 999 with the assistance of other shop occupants. The complainant has not co-operated in the matter. Connected load in full, can be assessed and reported only if the complainant takes steps to open up all the shops for inspection”. Ext. C1(a) is the report dated 1/3/05 from Electrical Inspector. As per Ext. C1(a) it is seen reported that the total connected load of consumer No.999 of Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam is assessed as 820 watts consisting of 13 Nos.of light points and 5 Nos.of plug points”. It is the stance of the opposite parties that the registered connected load of the premises is 2180 watts, that complainant is using the electric supply for different purposes, the tariff applicable is LT VII A irrespective of connected load. Further, connected load of a premise can be reduced only on application of the consumer with the completion report of a licensed wiring contractor and on execution of fresh service connection agreement and that complainant has not applied for a reduction in load so far. It is further submitted by opposite parties that in O.P.No. 276/99, the complainant had not raised any disputes regarding the connected load of his premises or the tariff applied. A perusal of Ext. D4 order dated 10/9/02 in O.P.No.276/99 reveals that the issue in the said O.P was with regard to the issuance of adjustment bill and the Forum found that the adjustment invoice was proper and complainant was directed to apply for reconnection on payment of the arrears and the same was remitted by the complainant by Ext. P8. It is the specific case of the complainant that during the disconnected status period from 11/2/99 to 26/7/03, no invoice or demand notice for fixed charge to be remitted was served to him. As such opposite parties cannot claim interest up on fixed charge during the disconnected status period. It is to be pointed out that during the disconnected status period, there is no energy consumption and hence there is no energy charge, whereas consumer has to remit fixed charge as and when opposite parties demands. Herein there is no case on the part of opposite parties that they have issued notices to complainant demanding monthly fixed charge. As such we find complainant is not liable to pay other charges as claimed except fixed charge. It is pertinent to point out further that under Commercial Tariff there are two categories – LT VII A and LT VII B. Those commercial establishments having connected load exceeding 1000 watts would come under LT VII A whereas those establishments like shops, hotels and restaurants, telephone booth etc.... where connected load does not exceed 1000 watts would come under LT VII B category. Evidently as per Ext. C1 complainant's premises consist of shops and house and as per Ext.C1(a), the total connected load of consumer No. 999 is assessed as 820 watts. Opposite party has not furnished any other documents to prove otherwise. Hence we find complainant is entitled to assesss the current charge under LT VII B category, instead of 3000 watts. As per Ext. D4, it is seen that complainant had challenged the additional bill for Rs. 11,762/- for a period upto 2/98 and due to non-payment of the same, the service was disconnected on 11/2/99. There was no tariff disputes in the former O.P.No.276/99. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that the interim order dated 10/2/04 restoring the electric connection is to be made absolute, that complainant is entitled to get notice dated 16/12/03 issued by opposite parties cancelled, that complainant is also entitled to get the current charge assessed as per the actual connected load under LT VII (B) tariff.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The interim order dated 10/2/2004 to re-connect the electric connection to consumer No.KJM.999 is made absolute. The notice dated 16/12/2003 (Ext. P3) issued by the 2^nd opposite party is hereby cancelled. Complainant shall file an application to opposite parties for tariff conversion from LT VII (A) to LT VII (B). On receipt of the said application for tariff conversion, opposite parties shall convert the tariff from LT VII (A) to LT VII (B) with effect from 11/12/99 onwards, and shall return/adjust the excess amount if any already remitted by the complainant after 11/12/99 in the future bill. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

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 15^th day of May, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No.15/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sadasivan

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Notice dated 12/5/2003 for Rs. 44,089/-

P2 : " 30/6/2003 for Rs.43,989/-

P3 : " 16/2/2003 issued to complainant

P4 : Copy of the notice dated 2/1/2004

P5 : Acknowledgement card

P6 : Receipt of current charge bill from 1/03 to 9/03 for Rs.640/- dated 31/10/2003.

P7 : Receipt of current charge bill for 10/03 and 11/03 of Rs.1,072/-.

P8 : Receipt of arrear payment of Rs.11,862/- dated 23/7/2003.

P9series : Include bills.

III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of service connection ledger

D2 : Copy of ledger

D3 : Copy of details of arrears

D4 : Copy of final judgement dated 10/09/2002

V. Court witness : NIL

VI. Court Exts:

C1 : Commission Report

PRESIDENT