IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 113/2012 (Filed on 22.06.2012)
Between:
Leelamma Philip,
Thondalil Grace Villa,
Nedumon, Ezhamkulam. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Biju. M. Thankachan)
And:
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,
Represented by its Secretary,
KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, KSEB,
Ezhamkulam. … Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant is the consumer of opposite parties. She has been regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties. While so, on 05.05.2010 complainant received a bill of ` 28,690 alleging that consumption of excess energy was detected and the energy was used for some other purpose. Complainant was also directed to convert her single phase connection to 3 phase connection. The said bill was subsequently revised by the order of Ezhamkulam Section on 27.05.2010 as ` 14,201. Complainant has used the electricity connection solely for domestic purpose. Opposite parties mis-construed the voltage stabilizer connected to the television installed in her house as power timer of amplifier for cable T.V net work.
3. The complainant being an age old lady was incapable for challenging the said bill and as such she remitted the above bill amount and has converted the connection from single phase to three phase. By taking undue advantage of the above said innocent attitude of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party has issued an additional bill for ` 26,105 assessed as short assessment bill to the complainant. As per Sec.126 of the Electricity Act and Clause 50 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply empower the opposite parties to issue any short assessment bill in the case of the detection of excess use of energy. The said section and clauses clearly stipulates that in the event of detection of any unauthorized use of electricity by the consumer, such officer shall provisionally assess to the best of his judgment and the same shall be served to the consumer. Since alleged unauthorized use by the complainant was already assessed, the 2nd opposite party has no manner of right or authority to re-assess the same for a second time. There is gross deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in issuing the above said bill. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bill of ` 26,105 dated 23.04.2012 with a compensation of ` 5,000.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This complaint was filed consequent to a short assessment bill against the complainant by the 2nd opposite party. The bill issued by the 2nd opposite party on 05.05.2010 was not correct as per Sec.50(6) of the terms and conditions of supply 2005. This was pointed out by the Regional Audit Officer on his inspection on 07.04.2012. The bill was based on the inspection and the site mahazar of the Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Ezhamkulam on 19.04.2010. Complainant misused the electric connection for cable TV net work whereas the connection was provided for domestic purpose. As per the assessment, a provisional bill was issued for ` 28,690 for one year. The complainant filed a complaint against this assessment before the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party heard the complaint and revised bill for six months as ` 14,201. Complainant remitted the said bill amount and converted the service connection as three phase from single phase for 9 KW.
5. On 07.04.2012 the Regional Audit Officer, Pathanamthitta on his inspection report pointed out that the assessment made by 2nd opposite party was incorrect as per terms and conditions of Supply 2005, Section 50(6). The assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity was taken place, the assessment can be made for the entire connected load at rate equal to twice the tariff that applicable for relevant category of service. But in this case instead of 9 KW, assessment was made only for 1 KW. As per Sec. 24 (5) of Supply code, the licensee can re-assess the calculation if short assessment is found.
Short assessment for fixed charges and current charges
1. Fixed charges from 10/2009 to 2/2010
9x50x2x6 = ` 5,400/-
2. Current charges for 10/2009
1051x8.05x2 = ` 16,921/-
3. Current charges for 12/2009
961x7.5x2 = ` 14,415/-
4. Current charges for 2/2010
914x7.5x2 = ` 13,710/-
5. Duty = ` 2,252/-
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = ` 52,698/-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount remitted in LT1A tariff
Including duty = ` 12,392/-
Balance to be collected as penal bill = `40,306/-
Amount remitted by the consumer
as penal bill on 14.06.2010 = ` 14,201/-
Balance to be collected = ` 26,105/-
6. At the time of inspection, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Ezhamkulam found that at the premises of complainant, the electricity is used for the working of power injector and the UPS. It is provided for the cable T.V. network. It is noted that Sri. Aji Philip, son of the complainant is using more than 2000 electric post for drawing cable for cable T.V. network owned by him. As per clause 50(6) of terms and conditions of supply 2005, the assessing officer reaches the conclusion that in unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for entire connected load at a rate equal to twice the tariff that is applicable for relevant category of service. As per Supply Code 2005, Sec.24(5), if the licensee establishes that it has under charged the consumer either by review or otherwise, the licensee may recover the amount under charged from the consumer by issuing a bill in such cases at least 30 days shall be given for the consumer to make payment against the bill. Therefore, there would not occur any illegality on their part and they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration:
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
8. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant’s son and Exts. A1 to A5. No oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite parties. After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
9. Point Nos. 1 to 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant’s son filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. The documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A5. Ext. A1 is the copy of provisional bill dated 05.05.2010 for ` 28,690 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A2 is the copy of the revised bill dated 28.05.2010 for ` 14,201 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 is the short assessment bill of ` 26,105 dated 23.04.2012 issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A4 is the copy of objection dated 29.05.2012 issued to second opposite party by the complainant. Ext. A5 is the reply dated 05.06.2012 issued by the opposite parties in reply to Ext. A4, complainant’s objection.
10. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties.
11. On the basis of the contention and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. The complainant’s case is that, opposite parties by alleging use of excess energy of electricity and issued additional bill for ` 28,690 and subsequently revised and compounded to ` 14,201 and the same was remitted by the complainant. After that, opposite parties again issued an additional bill of ` 26,105 assessed as short assessment bill. Since alleged unauthorized use by the complainant was already assessed, the opposite parties have no manner of right or authority to re-assess the same for a second time. This is a deficiency of service.
12. According to opposite parties, the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity was taken place. The assessment can be made for the entire connected load at the rate equal to twice the tariff that applicable for relevant category of service. But in this case, instead of 9 KW, assessment was made only for 1 KW. As per Sec. 24(5) of the Supply Code, the licensee can made re-assessment if the short assessment is found. As per re-assessment, complainant has to pay ` 26,105 which is legal and proper.
13. It is seen that the complainant availed the connection for domestic purpose. According to opposite parties, at the time of inspection, the complainant’s son Sri. Aji Philip was running a cable T.V. network. For that electricity is used for the working of power injector and the UPS. On inspection, opposite parties found unauthorized use of power and unauthorized connected load and issued Ext. A1 bill of ` 28,690. Ext. A2 shows that second opposite party had compounded Ext. A1 bill as ` 14,201. Materials on record show that complainant paid the said Ext. A2 bill and converted the single phase connection into three phase connection as per the direction of opposite parties.
14. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has not a case that she had not used unauthorized connected load at the time of paying Ext. A2 bill. If she had such a contention, she ought to have challenge Ext. A1. Moreover, she failed to raise dispute against the site mahazar and inspection report resulted in Ext. A1. By paying Ext. A2 bill, complainant admitted the unauthorized connected load. By admitting the unauthorized use of connected load, complainant is estopped from challenging Ext. A3. Ext. A4 reveals that Regional Audit Office, Pathanamthitta after their audit directed to collect the amount of ` 26,105. As per Ext. A1, assessment is made only for 1 KW. But as per Ext. A5, actually there was 9 KW and it is found short assessment. In case of short assessment, opposite parties are entitled to issue fresh bills for the dues of short assessment. So we find that Ext. A3 is legal. Ext. A2 is not a new bill. It is the part of Ext. A1 bill and Ext. A3 is issued for dues of the complainant.
15. From the above facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, we cannot find any deficiency or irregularity on the part of opposite parties, though they failed to adduce any evidence. Hence, complainant is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed.
16. However, complainant is allowed to remit Ext. A3 amount by 12 equal monthly instalments and the opposite parties are directed to accept the same if she desires so.
17. With the above direction, complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of provisional bill dated 05.05.2010 for ` 28,690
issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A2 : Copy of the revised bill dated 28.05.2010 for ` 14,201
issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A3 : Short assessment bill of ` 26,105 dated 23.04.2012
issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.
A4 : Copy of objection dated 29.05.2012 issued to second
opposite party by the complainant.
A5 : Reply dated 05.06.2012 issued by the opposite parties in
reply to Ext. A4 complainant’s objection.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Leelamma Philip, Thondalil Grace Villa, Nedumon,
Ezhamkulam.
(2) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB,
Ezhamkulam.
(4) The Stock File.
