KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO: 351/2006
JUDGMENT DATED:21..12..2010
PRESENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Major Section,
Payyannur.
: APPELLANTS
2. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydhuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs.
Emman Raghavan,
S/o Karimban, Athulya Building, : RESPONDENT
Near Buas Stand, Payyannur.
(By Adv:Sri.K.K.Kochukrishnan)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.343/2000 on the file of CDRF, Kannur. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A2 adjustment invoice dated:18/5/2000. The complainant claimed refund of Rs.24,002.- as the excess amount collected by the opposite parties.
2. Notice in OP.343/00 was served on opposite parties 1 and 2 and they entered appearance. They filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They justified their action in issuing A2 adjustment invoice dated:18/5/2000. It is also contended that A2 adjustment invoice was issued by way of current charges for the electricity actually consumed by the complainant for the period from 4/97 to 4/00. It is also contended that the complainant was allowed instalment facility and he paid a sum of Rs.74,749.14 by way of instalments and a sum of Rs.55,038/- is due by way of balance amount. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in OP.343/00.
3. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 to A7 documents were marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite parties, DW1, KSEB Engineer was examined. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:27/1/2006 directing the opposite parties to recalculate the adjustment bill issued to the complainant, on the basis of the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice card for 6 months alone immediately before filing of the complaint and to refund the excess amount paid by the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant for causing difficulties to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.
4. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation from the side of the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that there is no limitation for demanding and realizing the electricity charges for the electricity actually consumed by the complainant/consumer for the period from April 97 to April 2000. He vehemently argued for the position that there was no deficiency of service in issuing the A2 adjustment invoice demanding the electricity charges of Rs.1,24,783.63. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
5. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant is a consumer of electricity under opposite party/KSEB. The complainant was provided with A1 series of provisional invoice cards. Originally the electricity connection to the premises of the complainant was a single phase connection and subsequently it was converted into 3 phase connection. The complainant was issued a provisional invoice card by treating the average consumption as 500 units. But subsequently the consumption was increased and thereby another invoice card was issued. It was again revised and another provisional invoice card was issued. Admittedly the complainant was not given any additional invoice/bills or adjustment invoice or bills for the excess energy he consumed over and above the provisional invoice card amount. It is true that the complainant remitted the amounts covered by the provisional invoice cards. There is no dispute that the complainant being the consumer of electrical energy consumed more energy than that of the units stipulated in the provisional invoice cards. So, the KSEB is perfectly justified in demanding the additional amount for the additional electricity consumed by the complainant/consumer. There is no case for the complainant/consumer that he paid the additional current charges for the excess energy consumed by him for the period from 4/97 to 4/2000. So, the opposite party/KSEB is justified in issuing A2 additional or adjustment invoice dated:18/5/2000 demanding an amount of Rs.1,24,783.63 for the additional energy consumed by the complainant for the period from 4/97 to 4/2000.
6. The finding of the Forum below is that inconvenience had been caused to the complainant/consumer by issuing A2 adjustment invoice dated:18/5/2000 demanding a huge amount of Rs.1,24,783.63. It is true that the opposite parties/KSEB could have issued the adjustment invoice periodically at any rate within one year. In this case the opposite parties issued A2 adjustment invoice for Rs.1,24,783.63 for a period of 3 years ie, from April 1997 to April 2000. But the Forum below cannot be justified in directing the opposite parties to limit their demand for the additional current charges for a period of 6 months. It is to be noted that no period of limitation is prescribed in the old Electricity Act. The period of limitation is prescribed only under section 56 (3) of the Electricity Act, 2003. So, as far as the demand for arrears of current charges for the period from April 1997 to April 2000 is concerned the aforesaid demand is not barred by limitation. The mere fact that there occurred delay in issuing the adjustment/additional invoice cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the complainant/consumer is not liable to pay the electricity charges for the electrical energy actually consumed by the consumer. So, the aforesaid order passed by the Forum below limiting the payment for 6 months is legally unsustainable and the said order can be treated as unwarranted. Hence the said direction passed by the Forum below is set aside.
7. Admittedly, the complainant/consumer was given the instalment facility and he availed the aforesaid instalment facility also. The case of the complainant that he paid excess amount of Rs.24,002/- cannot be believed or accepted. There is no material available on record to support the case of the complainant regarding payment of excess amount of Rs.24,002/-. The Forum below cannot be justified in ordering refund of Rs.24,002/- to the complainant. The aforesaid order directing refund of Rs.24,002/- is also set aside.
8. The Forum below has also awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1000/-. In fact no financial loss, inconvenience or prejudice had been caused to the complainant by demanding the current charges for the electrical energy actually consumed by the complainant. It is to be noted that the complainant/consumer has not disputed the consumption of energy recorded in the energy meter installed at the premises of the complainant/consumer. There is also no case for the complainant that A2 adjustment invoice was issued against the consumption of energy recorded by the energy meter. The Forum below cannot be justified in awarding compensation and cost to the complainant. The complainant has not succeeded in establishing the alleged deficiency of service and the resultant financial loss, mental agony or inconvenience said to have been suffered by the complainant. So, the order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- is also set aside. Thus, the complaint in OP.343/00 is liable to be dismissed. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:27th January 2006 passed by CDRF, Kannur in OP.343/00 is set aside. Thereby the complaint in OP.343/00 on the file of CDRF, Kannur is dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs throughout.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VL.
