DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of October 2014
Present: Smt.Seena.H. President
Smt.Shiny.P.R. Member
Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
Date of filing : 23/08/2013
CC No.144/2013
Heera Chandrika
D/o.Late.K.C.narayanan Vaidhyar,
Keycees House,
Mahilasamajam Road,
Ottapalam-1 - Complainant
(By Adv.Ramesh Poonkavanam)
Vs
1.The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2.Asst.Engineer,
K.S.E.B,
Electrical Section, Ottapalam
(By Adv.K.N.Vijayaraghavan) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
Order by Smt.SUMA.K.P. MEMBER
Complainant is running an institution naming AVP Vaidyasala. Formerly complainant’s brother K.C.Ramakrishnan was conducting the said institution. After his death complainant continued the vaidyasala. In connection with manufacturing ayurvedic medicines complainant is also running a factory adjacent to her house having 3 phase electric connection. The said electric connection was provided for the past 46 years in the consumer No.1656. According to the complainant, the said connection was issued in the name of her brother K.C.Ramakrishnan. But the name shown in the electric bills issued by the opposite party bears the name of Radhakrishna Menon instead of Ramakrishnan. After the death of her brother the complainant is holding the electric connection and bills were paid by her. The said fact is known to the opposite parties. But the connection was not changed to her name.
The opposite party issued an electricity bill dated 2/5/2013 demanding to pay an amount of Rs.45411/- . The above bill shows the previous reading date as 1/4/2013 and previous reading as 1759 and the present reading shown as 9090. The complainant states that for a period of one month from 1/4/2013 to 2/5/2013 consumption of electricity will not come upto 7331 units. Hence complainant filed a petition to second opposite party dated 10/5/2013. She received a reply dated 27/5/2013 stating that the consumption was raised due to earth leakage in the electric meter provided at the premises. Consumer submits that her usual electricity bills covers upto 500 to 600 range. She used to consume only lesser electricity for the said amount. She also submits that for the somany bills issued previous to the disputed bill the status was shown as door locked and the said fact was noticed only later. For the bills issued from 5/5/2012 till 1/4/2013 the reading was mentioned as 1759 and the status was shown as door locked. According to the complainant, herself alongwith her sister was residing in the house adjacent to this factory and it was always occupied. At no point of time the factory remains as door locked. There were labourers working inside the factory. Hence the fact that door locked mentioned in the bills is not correct. The complainant also submits that the opposite parties had never inspected the meter reading and issued incorrect bills stating as door locked showing the same meter reading for the past one year. If the opposite party had correctly inspected the premises the earth leakage could have been detected earlier and consumer will not had suffered such huge loss. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainant is not responsible to pay such huge amount as electricity charges because of the negligence and irresponsible attitude which amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Not only that the second opposite party had sent some staff from his office to the complainant’s premises and they took over one sub meter without the knowledge of the complainant and had also done some alterations in the main meter installed in the factory. The complainant alleges that opposite party had done this so as to overcome their deficiency of service and this had also hurted her emotions as a consumer.
Hence the complainant had approached before this Forum seeking for an order to declare that complainant is not responsible to pay the amount of Rs.45,411/- as per the bill issued by opposite party dated 2/5/2013 alongwith compensation of Rs.60,000/- for mental agony suffered and also to direct the opposite party not to disconnect the electric connection and also to pay cost of this complaint.
Notice in the said complaint was served on the opposite parties and all the opposite parties had entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They also contended that the above complaint is made against the assessment made by the assessing authorities and hence the complaint is not maintainable before the forum. Opposite parties contented that the name of the consumer of Consumer No.1656 as per the records available with the opposite parties is Radhakrishna Menon. The name of the consumer was given as per the name shown in the application for getting electric connection from the opposite parties. So far no application or request is made to change the name of the consumer No.1656 Ottapalam Electrical Section of KSEB. It is true that electricity charges in the bill No.712356 dated 2/5/2013 issued to the consumer No.1656 is Rs.45,411/- as per the meter reading of the consumer No.1656 taken by the assessing officer of the opposite parties. There was no complaint from the consumer 1656 that the electricity meter installed by KSEB at the premises of the consumer is faulty or not working properly till the disputed bill is given. The premise of the consumer No.1656 is always seen locked, therefore the meter reading could not be taken from the premises of the consumer No.1656 from 5/5/2012. So the electricity bills was given on the basis of average consumption of electricity on the previous periods. In the electricity bills of the previous periods regarding consumer NO.1656 after 5/5/2012 till 2/5/2013 it is specifically mentioned that door locked. The said bill amounts were paid by the consumer without any objection till 2/5/2013. Though the factory premises of the consumer No.1656 situated adjacent to the house of the complainant, she did not make any attempt to open the premises and to take the reading of the electricity meter of the factory premises till 2/5/2013. When the electricity meter reading was taken by the opposite party on 2/5/2013 the reading was shown as 9090. The previous meter reading noted was 1759. So the consumption of electrical energy by the consumer No.1656 is 7331 units of electricity. This consumption was not for one month but the same is for the period from 5/5/2012 to 2/5/2013 during which period the consumer premise was seen locked. The consumer or the complainant did not give any help or assistance to take meter reading of the consumer eventhough request was made to complainant several times since she is residing adjacent to the premises of the consumer. On receipt of the complaint regarding electricity bill dated 2/5/2013 from the complainant, the authorized officer of KSEB inspected the site of the consumer and found there was earth leakage due to the defect in the wiring circuit of the consumer. Therefore notice dated 27/5/2013 was issued to the consumer by the second opposite party directing to rectify the defect in the wiring circuit of the premises and report within one week of the receipt of the notice. The said notice is in accordance with law and allegations made against the said notice in the complaint are not correct and without any basis. Consumer No.1656 is an electricity connection under LT IV tariff. For industrial connection power load and light load has to be segregated. So power meter and light meter are installed in the premises of consumer No.1656. Now there is no necessity for such segregation between power load and light load under LT IV tariff. So the light meter is removed from the premises of consumer No.1656. The same was done only in accordance with the law. The opposite parties clearly explained the reason for the assessment of electricity charges mentioned in the bill dated 2/5/2013 to the consumer. There is no dereliction of duties nor deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
Opposite parties also alleged that complaint made against assessment of unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 cannot as such be maintainable before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The proper remedy for the complaint is the legal action taken under section 135 to 140 of electricity act 2003. On that ground alone the above complaint is liable to be dismissed. The above complaint is filed without any basis suppressing all true facts in order to harass opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed in the petition and hence the petition has to be dismissed with cost to opposite parties.
Since opposite party had raised the issue of maintainability before the Forum matter was preliminary heard with regard to the question of maintainability. According to the complainant the excess bill is due to earth leakage which was also admitted by the opposite party. On perusal of the decision rendered by the Apex Court, the Forum find that the bar is with respect to the complaint wherein the consumers indulge in “unauthorized use /misuse of electricity and against the assessment made under section 126”. Further bar is with respect to the complaints against any action taken under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act 2003. The forum found that the complaint herein is no where connected with section 126 assessment or come under section 135 to 140 of Electricity Act 2003. Hence the preliminary issue regarding maintainability was found in favour of the complainant.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party filed application for cross examination of the complainant and application was allowed. Complainant filed application seeking permission to conduct the case by Power of Attorney holder, since the complainant is out of station in connection with the delivery of her daughter. Hence application was allowed and power of attorney holder was directed to file fresh affidavit and appear for cross examination. Power of attorney holder filed fresh affidavit and was cross-examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A18 was marked. Opposite parties also filed proof affidavits.
Heard both parties.
Issues arises for consideration.
- Whether the complainant can be considered as a consumer within the ambit of consumer protection act 1986?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties as alleged by the complainant?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
Issue No.1
The contentions of the opposite parties that the complainant is not the consumer of the opposite party. According to the complainant the above contention is highly technical and not sustainable. An institution like KSEB which is established to serve the general public is not at all supposed to take such a non humanitarian stand. The case of the opposite party is that no application is given for electric connection by the complainant or her relatives, is not true. Connection No.1656 was taken by the brother of the complainant, i.e K.C.Ramakrishnan. It is categorically stated by the complainant that his name is mistakenly shown in the bills as Radhakrishna Menon, by the opposite parties. As the bills were served on the complainant and amount was also remitted by her, the complainant did not give much importance to this aspects which she considered it as a clerical mistake. If consumer No.1656 connection was given as per an application given by K.C.Radhakrishna Menon, it could have been very well proved by the opposite parties, by producing that application which is in their custody which was not done. It shows that their contention is not bonafide and they are misleading the forum to get rid of from their mistakes in recording the name of the consumer. The initials of the complainant, her power of attorney holder and Radhakrishna Menon whose name shown in the bills are one and the same i.e. (K.C.) Another argument of the complainant is that the opposite party did not produce any evidence to prove that complainant is not the consumer of the KSEB. The opposite party contented that the electricity supply is to be given to the consumer on making an application to the Board by the owner of or occupier of the premises as per rule 5 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code and rule 3 of the KSEB Terms and Condition of Supply 2005. The application shall be accompanied by all the necessary documents to prove the ownership or possession of the premises. On the basis of such application the electricity connection will be given to the applicant and he is the registered consumer of the KSEB. The applicant has to remit application fee, security fee etc., for getting connection. If there is any change in the ownership the necessary application has to be made before the KSEB to change the name of registered consumer. Electricity bills will be issued only in the name of registered consumer who applied for electricity connection. As per rule 35 of the KSEB Terms and Condition of Supply 2005, the contents of the bill should contain bill date, name and address of the issuing office of the KSEB, name of the consumer, consumer number etc. So the electricity bill issued by the opposite party will conclusively prove the fact that, one K.C.Radhakrishna Menon is the name of the registered consumer of consumer No.1656. The complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties and that is proved by the electricity bills and other documents produced by the complainant. So the argument of the complainant that the failure of production of application submitted by K.C.Radhakrishna Menon for the electricity connection of consumer No.1656 has no relevancy. The complainant contented that since she is the actual consumer of consumer No.1656 and that opposite party gave all the electric bills to her for the very long period which she had produced before the forum and was marked as Ext.A13 series Opposite party submits that the electricity bills was served at the premises where the electricity connection is given specifically mentioned in the consumer No. and the name of the registered consumer. There is no stipulation or rule that the electricity bill should be served on the regd. consumer directly and the consumer himself has to pay the electricity bill. Electricity bill amount can be paid by any person who brings the electricity bill to the collection authority of the KSEB. So the production of electricity bill will not prove the fact that the complainant herself paid the electricity bill. The complainant has given an objection to the electricity bill dtd.02/05/2013 on behalf of the regd. consumer. The opposite party sent reply dtd. 27/05/2013 to that objection submitted by the complainant to K.C.Radhakrishna Menon who is the regd. consumer of the KSEB and not in the name of the complainant. The said reply is marked as Ext.A3 from the side of the complainant. The complainant contented that opposite party made oral demand to facilitate meter reading. But the opposite party contented that demand was made only to the consumer to make arrangements for meter reading and not to the complainant. PW1 during her cross examination admitted that there are electricity bills regarding consumer No.1656 in the name of her brother Ramakrishnan. The complainant did not take any action or steps to produce such document before the forum. According to opposite party they had never issued electricity bills of consumer No.1656 in the name of Ramakrishnan. Since the electricity connection was given to the consumer no.1656 in the year 1969, the application for electricity supply and connected papers submitted along with the applications are not kept in the office of the opposite parties. Opposite parties need to keep such records only for a period of 35 years and after that it will be destroyed after making necessary relevant entries in the registers kept in the office of the opposite party. As per clause 19(3) of KSEB Terms and Condition of Supply 2005, if a transfer of ownership or occupancy of the premises is effected the registered consumer shall intimate the transfer of ownership or right of occupancy of the premises within 7 days to the Asst.Engineer of KSEB. If the transferee desires to enjoy the service connection he shall apply for transfer of ownership of service connection within 15 days and execute fresh agreement and furnish additional security. In this case no such steps were taken by either transferor or transferee so far. The argument of the complainant that she did not take it seriously is not an excuse for the violation of such provision of law. PW1 admitted that she noticed to the name of the consumer No.1656 in the electricity bill is K.C.Radhakrishna Menon. Even after that she did not take any steps to change the name of the consumer No.1656 in her name. Therefore complainant is not a regd. consumer of the opposite party and she is not entitled for any service of electricity supply from the opposite party. The contention of the complainant that in the electricity bill of consumer No.1656, there is a mention of AVP Vaidyasala and that indicates that the complainant is the consumer of the premises for which the disputed bill is issued. That argument is also not sustainable because of the fact that the registered consumer K.C.Radhakrishna Menon can also run AVP Vaidyasala in the premises of consumer no.1656. The documents produced by the complainant (the receipt issued by Asst.Labour Office, Ottapalam) for renewal of registration of AVP Vaidyasala, the professional tax receipt and the receipt for remitting the renewal fees of license of AVP Vaidyasala are all the documents pertaining after filing of the complaint. More over there is nothing to show that the said documents are pertaining to the premises of the consumer No.1656.
The other argument of the complainant is that if the complainant is not the consumer, the opposite party cannot undertake legal proceedings against the complainant. The opposite party can take actions to recover the bill amount as per law only against the regd. consumer and not against the complainant. The regd. consumer has to face all the consequences for not paying the electricity charges for the electricity used by the consumer as demanded by the electricity board. In this case complainant miserably failed to prove the primary fact that she is the regd. consumer of the opposite parties. Hence we hold that on the basis of the fact and evidence on record, the case of the complainant is not legally sustainable. The point No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3: -
The forgoing discussions and the findings there on would make it clear that the complainant is not the regd consumer and other opposite parties and the dispute regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties cannot be conducted by the complainant. The aforesaid issue regarding the negligence and the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties is left open for consideration by a competent authority legally constituted u/s 135 to 145 of Electricity Act 2003 and also before the CGRF (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum) constituted under the Act. This fact is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision U.P.Power Corporation Ltd & others VS Anis Ahmed reported in AIR 2013 SC Page 2766. In the dispute in this case is regarding illegal wastage of electricity due to earth leakage of consumer premises of consumer No.1656 due to the gross negligence of the opposite party. Regarding the dispute of amount of bill has to be dealt in accordance with Section 31 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply.
In the result the above complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of October 2014.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
Member
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Bill dtd.02/05/2013 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A2 - Copy of letter dtd.10/05/2013 sent to the opposite party by the
complainant.
Ext.A3 – Copy of letter dtd.27/05/2013 issued by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A4 – Copy of form 26-D
Ext.A5 – Bill dtd.05/05/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A6 - Bill dtd.05/06/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A7 - Bill dtd.03/08/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A8 - Bill dtd.05/09/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A9 - Bill dtd.01/10/2012 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A10 - Bill dtd.04/01/2013 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A11 - Bill dtd.02/02/2013 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A12 - Bill dtd.01/04/2013 issued by opposite party.
Ext.A13 series – Bills issued by opposite party (35 bills)
Ext.A14 – Copy of notice dtd.23/12/2013 issued by opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A15 - Copy of letter dtd.03/1/2014 sent to the opposite party by the
complainant.
Ext.A16 – Copy of TR.5 dtd.08/01/2014 issued by opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext.A17 - Copy of Tax receipt dtd.23/01/2014 issued by Ottapalam
Municipality in the name of complainant.
Ext.A18 - Copy of Tax receipt dtd.22/02/2014 issued by Ottapalam Municipality
in the name of complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1- Pingala.K.C
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost
No cost allowed
