SMT. RAVI SUSHA : PRESIDENT
Complainant filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get a relief to quash the short assessment bill having No.AFNo.51221 issued by OP to the complainant dtd.1/11/2015 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
The fact of this complaint is that the complainant is the owner of a Nursing Home of 10 beds from 1990. Now it is only outpatient clinic. The allegation of the complainant is that, though she had paid the electricity bill regularly without any fault, got an additional bill of Rs.12351/- having an explanation that it was issued due to miscalculation. Complainant submits that her hospital is a private hospital since 1990, then how OP can consider it as a Govt. hospital and electricity bill having tariff of a Govt. hospital. Complainant further submits that for changing of actual tariff of a private hospital, the OP took 2 years and this disputed bill issued to the complainant without any fault of her. According to complainant from issuing this short assessment bill caused a mental breakdown to her and she has no obligation to pay the said bill. Hence filed this complaint as prayed for.
On receiving notice, OP entered appearance through counsel and filed written version submitting that complainant is a consumer having electric connection No.1166452003458 of OP from 5/10/1991 having connected load 8620 watts. Op further admitted that complainant’s hospital is a private hospital but they issued bill to complainant under VIB tariff applicable to Govt.Travelers Banglavu and issue bill under VIB tariff up to 8/15 and changed to VIF tariff to next bill onwards. OP denied the allegation of the complainant that the disputed bill was sent due to miscalculation and also denied the averment that her hospital was entered as Govt. hospital. The submission of OP is that as per the tariff revision of May 2013, tariff of private hospital was changed to LTVII I and as per tariff revision of August 2014, the tariff of private hospital was changed to LTVIF. Since the above revision was not noticed by OP while issuing the bill , it was issued under VI B tariff upto 8/15. OP further pleaded that the Regional audit officer of Sreekandapuram was detected the wrong tariff given to the complainant. So the short assessment bill of Rs.12267/- for a period from 6/13 to 8/15 was issued to the complainant and after receival of disputed bill the complainant approached the OP and requested for instalmments and granted two instalments and further the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.3000/- as 1st instalment. OP stated that the bill issued is as per the regulation 134(1) of supply code 2014 that “if it is established either by review or otherwise, that the consumer has been undercharged, the licensee is allowed to recover the undercharged amount from the consumer by issuing bill and no limitation in period is specified in such cases and hence the billing can be done for the entire period.” OP denied the averment of the complainant that on receipt of the said bill she suffered a mental breakdown and have no means to pay the said amount. According to OP, there is no deficiency in service on their part, the complainant is liable to pay the amount recorded by the electric meter. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1&A2 were marked from complainant’s side. Ext.A1 is the disputed bill dtd.1/11/2015 and Ext.A2 is the electricity bill dtd.9/10/2015. The Asst.Engineer of OP Mr.Rajesh filed his chief affidavit and was examined as DW1. Ext.B1 calculation statement was marked from OP’s side. The learned counsels appearing for both parties filed written argument notes. We have carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence brought before us from both sides, Kerala Gazette publications produced from the OP’s side and also the submissions of both learned counsels.
The question to be considered in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP and if so what relief is entitled to the complainant?
The undisputed facts in this case are that1) The complainant is a consumer of OP having electricity connection No.1166452003458 since 5/10/1991 2) the complainant is the owner of Secret Heart hospital, Pushpagiri, private hospital and 3) on 1/11/2015 OP issued the short assessment bill due to misclassification of tariff from 6/13 to 8/2015 to the complainant having assessment amount of Rs.12,351/-.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP informed to the complainant that the electric connection of the complainant’s clinic was mistakenly billed under VI B tariff upto the month of August 2015 and the billing process is to be properly carried out by the OP and issued this bill Ext.A1 is due to the mistake committed from the side of the Op. So according to the complainant ,she shall not be victimized for the mistake of OP and Ext.A1 is to be waived off.
On the other hand the learned counsel of OP submitted that as per tariff revision of May 2013, tariff of private hospital was changed from VI B to LT VII I and as per tariff revision of August 2014, the tariff of private hospital was changed to LT VI F, but the above revision was not noticed while issuing the bill. So the bill was issued under VIB tariff upto 8/2015. Further submitted that this wrong tariff was detected by the Regional Audit officer and then Ext.A1 bill was issued to the complainant with Ext.B1 the calculation statement for a period 6/2013 to 8/2015 for which the complainant consumed the electricity. It is further submitted that the short assessment bill Ext.A1 was issued as per the regulation 134(1) of supply code 2014 and as per regulation 134(1) of supply code 2014 “ if it is established either by review or otherwise, that the consumer has been undercharged , the licensee is allowed to the recover the undercharged amount from the consumer by issuing a bill and no limitation in period is specified in such cases and hence the billing can be done for the entire period.” OP pleaded that the Regional audit officer was detected the wrong tariff given to the complainant’s private hospital and issued Ext.A1 bill to pay the amounts for consumption of electricity by the complainant for a period 6/13 to 8/15.
Ext.A1 would show that the bill issued for collecting charges for a period from 6/2013 to 8/2015.
From the side of OP submitted Kerala State Electricity Regulatory commission orders with regard to tariff for period from 1/7/2012 to 31/3/2013, from 1/5/2013 to 31/3/2014, from 16/8/2014 to 31/3/2015 and from 18/4/2017 to 31/3/2018, which show that as per tariff revision of July 2012, the tariff of private hospital was VI B and in May 2013, the tariff of private hospital was changed to LT VIII and in 2014 it was changed to LT VI(F).
Here OP also admitted that the change of tariff was not noticed while issuing the bill and submit that they issued Ext.A1 bill as per the regulation 134(1) of Supply code 2014. According to OP as per the said section they can recover the under charged amount for consumption of electricity from the consumer by issuing bill for the entire period without considering limitation period.
The learned counsel for the complainant raised two main contentions before us. In the first place, he submitted that the complainant is not a defaulter in paying the electricity bill. It is also contended that the fault was of the Board. Issuance of Ext.A1 is due the mistake of the Board. Since the mistake committed from the side of the OP in issuing bill under actual tariff, she is not liable to pay the assessed amount in the revised bill.
On perusal of Ext.A1 and documents of OP we could reveal that the OP has given detailed calculation statement for the demanded period as per the revision of tariff and units consumed by the complainant. In Ext.B1 it can be revealed that OP did not demand interest for the amount claimed. Here the demand for Rs.12351/- is supported on the basis of a statutory provision. In this case there was an inspection and the mistake was discovered and the bill was issued.
The learned counsel of complainant raised another point during cross examination of DW1, that no prior notice was issued to the complainant informing the change of tariff. For this our view is that the amount becomes due when the bill is issued. So no prior notice is needed. The bill does not contemplate charging of any interest.
From the aforesaid reasons and as per the regulation 134(1) of supply code 2014, OP can recover the amounts for consumption of electricity during the period. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP in issuing Ext.A1 short assessment bill and complainant is liable to pay the said amount. The points are answered accordingly.
OP stated that after receiving Ext.A1 notice complainant approached OP and requested for installments for remitting the amount, OP has given two installment and complainant has remitted an amount of Rs.3000/- as 1st installment. This statement was not opposed by the complainant before this commission. Hence that statement considered to be correct. So the complainant will have to pay the balance amount as stated in Ext.A1 bill. If complainant need instalment, OP also granting installment option and the complainant can be granted time till 2 months from the date of receipt of this order to pay the balance amount.
In the result, the complaint fails and hence it is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1&A2 -Electricity Bill dtd. 1/11/2015 and 9/10/2015
B1-Calculation statement
PW1- Dr.susan Victor -complainant
DW1-Ragesh- OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew. Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
