IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of March 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri. K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.63/2020 (Filed on 03/06/2020)
Complainant : House of Divine Providence Hospital (HDP)
Kaipuzha, by its Director
Kaipuzha P.O, Neendoor
Kottayam- 686602
(By Adv.Avaneesh V.N)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Kerala State Electricity Board
Rep.by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan
Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
2. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B Section
Neendoor P.O, Kottayam-686601
(By Adv.Deepthi S.Nath)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows:- The complainant is a hospital established in 1947 and having an electricity connection with consumer No.1146481000317. On 05.12.2015 and inspection was conducted at the premises of the complainant and it was found that the second opposite party issued bill under LT V1 A Tariff. It was further observed that the Tariff applicable to private hospitals is under LT V1 F Tariff. An order was issued to the complainant on 23.12.2015 to pay Rs.2,11,332/- on or before 22.01.2016.
The complainant then approached District consumer forum and filed complaint in CC No.9/16 before the district forum. The complaint was allowed by the District Forum setting aside the bill having No.BB/HDP Hospital/Tariff/317/2015-16/39 and 1146481000317 Dated 23.12.2015 issued by the second opposite party. The forum further ordered that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill in accordance with the relevant provisions of law without levying any penal charges.
After receiving the order of the District Consumer forum the second opposite party issued notice dated 28.02.2020 under Section 97 (2) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and then issued a bill for Rs.2,11,332/- on 28.05.2020. The same amount is included in this bill compared to the earlier bill.
In the order dated 23.12.2015 the second opposite party admitted that that the complainant was wrongly billed under LT V1A instead of LT V1 F. But in the notice dated on 28.02.2020 the opposite party stated about the tariffs under LT V111 and LT V1F.Hence a new plea is raised by the opposite parties for the issuance of bill dated 28.05.2020 and thereby a fresh cause of action has aroused. The notice dated 28.02.2020 is not in compliance with the order of the District Consumer Forum in CC 9/2016. Now the complainant is charged under LT V1 G General. All data’s are not included in the bill as per the provisions of Electricity Act. The bill is incomplete in nature. The complainant is not liable to pay the short assessment for the previous 24 months. The second opposite party is trying to evade from his own or his subordinates faults for applying the correct tariff. It is the duty of the second opposite party to inform the complainant to change the Tariff.
The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This complaint is filed to set aside the order having No.BB/ES-Neendoor/short assessment Bill and bill dated 28/05/2020 for Rs.2,11,332/-issued by the second opposite party and for getting a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties with cost Rs.15,000/-.
On admission of the complaint copy was duly served to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version.
The opposite parties appeared and second opposite party filed the version on behalf of the first and second opposite parties. The version of the opposite parties are as follows. The complainant already filed another complaint before the forum against the same subject matter as CC No.9/2016 which was disposed on 11.11.2019. Though the forum confirmed the statutory power of the opposite party to realize the short assessment amount, it set aside the bill on the observation that the licensee could not provide 30 days to the consumer to file objections about the assessment, as prescribed in Regu.97 (2) of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2014. It is specifically ordered that the licensee is at liberty to issue fresh notice procedurally to realize the short assessment amount. The opposite party complied the order by issuing fresh notice. The complainant filed an objection and the final assessment issued procedurally, without any penal charges. There is no fresh cause of action against the opposite parties.
An inspection had been conducted at the premises of the hospital and found that the consumer had been mistakenly billed under tariff LT V1 A in lieu of the higher tariff LT V1 F. A notice was issued to the complainant on 09.12.2015 to produce the relevant certificate to avoid change of tariff from LTV1 A, but no documents were produced by the complainant. Then KSEB issued a short assessment bill on 23.12.2015 for Rs.2,11,332/-.
AS per the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary Vol.11 dated 09.09.2013 No.2652, private hospitals registered under cultural, scientific and charitable societies act and exempted from payment of income Tax are classified under LTV1A tariff. All other private hospitals come under higher tariff V111. According to Kerala Gazette Extraordinary Vol.111 dated 27.09.2014 No.2379, private hospitals registered under cultural, scientific and charitable societies act and exempted from payment of Income Tax are classified under LTV1A tariff but the tariff of other private hospitals was changed to LT V1 F.
The complainant Hospital does not come under the group of private hospitals registered under Cultural, Scientific and charitable Societies Act and exempted from payment of income tax had been billing under Tariff LT VI A. The disputed bill was issued to realize this short assessment. The assessment is done as per Reg.134 and 97 of the supply code 2014. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked document as Exhibits A1 to A5. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked documents Exhibits B1 to B4.
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence adduced we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Points 1 and 2
On the basis of the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.1146481000317. The opposite parties conducted an inspection in the premises of the complainant on 05.12. 2015. On the basis of the findings of the inspection, the opposite parties issued a Short Assessment Bill with No.BB/HDPHospital/Tariff/317/2015-16/39 and 11464481000317 for Rs.2,11,343/- to the complainant on 23.12.2015.
2. The complainant approached District consumer forum and filed Consumer complaint in CC No.9/2016 against the act of the opposite party with a prayer to set aside the bill dated 23.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,11,332/-issued by the second opposite party.
The District Consumer forum had allowed the Complaint in CC No.9/2016 on 11.11.2019 and set aside the bill dated 23.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,11,332/-. The opposite parties are given liberty to issue fresh bill in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law without levying any penal charges from the complainant.
3. The Second opposite party issued Exhibit A2 notice on 28.02.2020 to the complainant under Regulation 97(2) of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2014.
In Exhibit A2 notice it was reported that the Licensee has proposed to change the tariff of the complainant Hospital appropriately to LT-8 tariff for the period from 01.01.2014 to 15.08.2014 and LT 6- F tariff from 16.08.2014 as per prevailing Gazette notification of Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding tariff for retail supply of electricity. The complainant was given 30 days’ time to file objection if any as per section 97 (2) of the Electricity Supply code 2014. The complainant filed Exhibit A3 objection dated 10.03.2020 challenging the issuance of Exhibit A2 notice.
4. The second opposite party issued Exhibit A4 order stating that considering the Exhibit A3 reply to the Exhibit A2 notice, a fresh Short Assessment Bill is issued to the complainant for Rs.2,11,332/- as per Regulation 134(1) and 152(3) of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014 and requesting to remit the short assessment bill less the amount Rs.1,05,666/- already remitted by the complainant within 30 days on receipt of the bill.
Exhibit A5 is the short assessment bill issued as per Regulation 134 (1) and 152(3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 issued on 28.05.2020. It is pertinent to note that this short assessment bill is issued to the complainant under Tariff 6 G contrary to the Exhibit A2 notice given on 28.02.2020. In Exhibit A2 notice dated 28.02.2020 it is notified that the licensee has proposed to change the tariff of the complainant hospital to LT 8 Tariff for the period from 01.01.2014 to 15.08.2014 and LT 6 F tariff from 16.08.2014. Hence Exhibit A5 bill cannot be considered as the short assessment bill issued to the complainant on the basis of Exhibit A2 notice and Exhibit A3 reply notice by the consumer.
As per Regulation 152(3) of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014 if upon inspection on the premises of the consumer and found that incorrect application of Tariff by the licensee even while there is no change in the purpose of use of electricity by the consumer, the amount of electricity charges short collected during the entire period which such anomalies persisted can be realized by the licensee without any interest. If the period of such short collection is not known or cannot be reliably assessed, the period of assessment of such short collection of electricity charges shall be limited to twelve months. It is further provided that the realization of electricity charges short collected shall be limited for a maximum period of twenty-four months, even if the period during which such anomaly persisted is found to be more than twenty-four months. For assessing the period of short collection the factors specified in sub regulation 8 of regulation 155 shall be considered.
Sub regulation 8 of regulation 155 reads as follows. For assessing the period of unauthorized use of electricity the following factors or any other evidence may be given due consideration.
- Actual period from the date of commencement of supply to the date of inspection
- Actual period from the date of replacement of component of metering system in which the evidence is detected to the date of inspection
- Actual period from the date of previous checking of installation to date of inspection
- Data recorded in the energy meter memory wherever available.
In Exhibit A2 notice it is notified that the short assessment was done for the period from 01.01.1014 to 31.12.2015.As per Regulation 152 (3) the short assessment can be given for a maximum period of twenty four months if the period of anomaly persisted is found to be more than twenty four months. The second opposite party failed to notify the complainant in Exhibit A2 notice whether they have applied any of the four factors specified in sub regulation 155 (8) for calculating the period of short assessment of electricity charges and how they calculated the period of short collectionis of more than 24 months.
On the basis of the above discussed findings it is clear that the opposite parties failed to issue the Exhibit A2 short assessment notice without adhering to the regulations provided in the Kerala State Electricity Supply code 2014. This act on the part of the opposite parties is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is evident that the act on the part of the opposite parties had caused much mental agony and hardships to the complainant which is to be suitably compensated by the opposite parties. In the light of the above discussed findings point no 1 is found in favor of the complainant. We allow the complaint and pass the following orders:-
1) We hereby set aside Exhibit A5 bill dated 28.05.2020 and the opposite parties are directed to issue fresh Short Assessment Bill to the complainant for a maximum period of twelve months prior to 05.12.2015 under the Tariff LT VI General (F) without any penal charges. If any excess amount paid or shortfall, the account of the consumer shall be suitably adjusted.
2) The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships and with cost Rs.5,000/-.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. If not complied as directed the compensation amount will carry 9% interest per annum till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of March 2023.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member sd/-
Sri. Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant.
A1- Copy of letter from the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Ltd, Neendoor, dated 23.12.2015.
A2- Copy of letter from the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Ltd, Neendoor, dated 28.02.2020.
A3- Copy of letter to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Neendoor, dated 10.03.2020.
A4- Copy of letter to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Neendoor.
A5- Copy of bill issued by KSEB, Neendoor Section, dated 28.05.2020.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties.
B1- Copy of letter to the Managing Director, HDP Hospital Kaipuzha, dated 28.02.2020.
B2- Copy of letter to the Managing Director, HDP Hospital Kaipuzha.
B3- Copy of order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam, dated 11.11.2019.
B4 & B4 (a) - Copy of the Kerala Gazette dated 05.09.2012.
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
