THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 189/2010.
Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2011
Petitioner : Roy Abraham,
Kalayathinakuzhiyil House,
Chettuthodu, Pinnakkanad P.O
Kottayam.
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Deputy Chief Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Circle,
Pala, Kottayam
3) The Exe. Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Division,
Pala, Kottayam.
4) The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section,
Pinnakkanad, Kalaketty.
5) Rupesh P.D,
Sub Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Pinnakkanad.
O R D E R
Sri Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 7..8..2010 is as follows. Petitioner is a consumer, with vide consumer No. 5710, and at the same time he is a beneficiary of consumer No. 607 under the 4th opposite party. Petitioner as a means of self employment is conducting poultry farm in the premises of his house. According to opposite party he meter reader of the opposite party is taking the meter reading of the electric supply. Petitioner regularly paid all bills issued by the 5th opposite party properly and prompt. Bill issued on 1..12..2009 is for a consumption of 594 units in consumer No. 5710. For the domestic connection with consumption of 162 units.
--2-
The meter of the petitioner is shown faulty on 1..2..2010. 5th opposite party on 5..2..2010 demanded bribe but petitioner had not heed the demand of the 5th opposite party. So, the 5th opposite party forcibly asked the petitioner to sign on certain blank papers. Opposite party on 6..2..2010 issued a penal bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 67,617/- for misuse of electric energy. According to the petitioner the penal bill is without any basis. Aggrieved petitioner filed a repetition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Hon’ble High Court as per order Dtd: 9..3..2010 directed the opposite party to consider the objection of the petitioner and to dispose the matter. Opposite party reassessed the bill for an amount of Rs. 28392/- and issued a final bill on 5..2..2010. According to the petitioner final bill issued by the opposite party is without any basis and is liable to be cancelled. Petitioner filed appeal petition against the final assessment. The appellate authority confirmed the final bill. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing the final bill dtd: 13..5..2010 and the order of change of tariff of the petitioner by the opposite party Dtd: 20..7..2010 amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for cancellation of the final bill Dtd: 13..5..2010 and the order dtd: 20..7..2010 . Petitioner claims refund of the amounts deposited to the appellate authority and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted that petitioner is a consumer coming under the second opposite party electric section. Consumer No. 5710 is a poultry farm under LT V agriculture tariff and consumer No. 607 under LT 1 –A domestic tariff. A penal bill for Rs. 28392/- was issued to the petitioner as per section 126 electricity act 2008 for mis use of energy. Complainant mis used energy
-3-
from the service connection No. 5710, sanctioned under agriculture tariff, for pumping water to a near by tank for domestic purpose. On 5..2..2010, 5th opposite party conducted an inspection at the premises of consumer No. 5710 as part of periodical inspection by the section squad. During inspection it was found that water was stored in the over head tank and the water used for poultry farm purpose as well as domestic purpose to the near by residence of the petitioner. A site mahazar was prepared. Based on the inspection a back assessment bill for Rs. 67,617/- was issued under LT VII A tariff for a connected load of 3 KW for 12 months. The penal bill was issued under LT VII A Tariff under the bonafide belief that selling activity is conducted at the poultry farm and later the tariff was revised to LT the 1 A (domestic) tariff on appeal. Penalization is done legally and there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court. 4th opposite party heard the objection of the petitioner and passed a final order . On 12..5..2010 final bill was issued to the petitioner for Rs. 28,392/- on 13..5..2010 by revising the tariff of the back assessment to LT 1 A domestic instead of LT VII A commercial. The allegation of the petitioner against 5th opposite party is denied. According to the opposite party final bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
iii) Relief and costs?
-4-
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A8 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
According to the opposite party since the petitioner had filed an appeal under section 127 of Electricity Act 2003 this petition before the Fora is not maintainable. Petitioner produced order of the proceedings of Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Section , Pala , said document is marked as Ext. B2. Ext. B2 is an order of an appeal to the appellate authority under section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. Petitioner is challenging the final bill issued by the opposite party under Section 126 (v) of the Electricity Act 2003. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jharkand State Electricity Board Vs. Anwar Ali (Reported in 2008 II CPJ (N.C) page 289. The aforesaid question was answered as under.
i) In a case of final assessment order passed under section 126 of the Electricity Act, if a consumer aggrieved. He can file complaint under consumer Protection Act . However, it is his option to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act or to file Appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act.
ii) Further against the final order passed by the Appellate Authority under section 127 of the Electricity Act, no complaint can be entertained by the Consumer Fora.
So, if an appeal under section 127 is filed to the appellate authority and an order is passed the Fora has no jurisdiction to pass an order by sitting as an appeal body to the appellate authority constitute under section 126 of the electricity Act. So,
-5-
in our view since the lis between the parties were decided by the Deputy Chief Engineer, as per Ext. B2 order Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2 & 3
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner.
Ext. A1: Penal Bill Dtd: 6..2..2010
Ext. A2: Penal bill Dtd: 13..5..2010
Ext. A3: Order of Second opposite party Dtd: 20..7..2010
Ext. A4: Carbon copy of the mahazar Dtd: 5..2..2010
Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 1..12..2009
Ext. A6: Bill Dtd: 1..2..2010
Ext. A7: Bill Dtd: 1..12..2009
Ext. A8: Bill Dtd: 1..2..2010
Documents for the Opposite party
Ext. B1: Site Mahazar Dtd: 5..2..2010
Ext. B2: Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer Dtd: 20..7..2010
Ext. B3: Minutes of hearing Dtd: 12..5..2010
Ext. B4: Provisional bill for Rs. 67617
Ext. B5: Bill for Rs. 28392/-
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
