BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 03/08/2012

Date of Order : 13/02/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 475/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The undisputed facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant obtained three phase electric connection bearing consumer No. 96565-4 under tariff LT VII A to his building bearing No. C.C. 39/2002-D (1-4). The complainant let out the building to the Tenant namely M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. from 15-07-2004. The said tenant vacated the premises on 15-11-2007. Thereafter, the building was vacant till 24-04-2009 on which date the said building was taken possession of by the purchaser Mr. Asok Kumar B. Mehra. The complainant made the payment of electricity charges from 15-11-2007 to 24-04-2009 for Rs. 1,840/- as the fixed charge for the connected load of 8940 watts. The facts while so on 25-09-2009, the opposite parties sent a demand-cum-disconnection notice dated 25-09-2009 for remitting Rs. 50,592/- towards fixed charges and duty for the alleged additional connected load of 5 KW with effect from 28-11-2006. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the opposite parties had conducted the inspection at the premises on 28-11-2006 and detected unauthorised additional connected load of 5 KW. Thereafter, they caused to issue a bill to the tune of Rs. 92,841/-, and thereafter, disconnected the connection on 15-12-2009 without giving notice to the complainant. The opposite parties are not to make any demand for the payment of additional connected load after 15-11-2007. Accordingly, the complainant approached this Forum by filing C.C. No. 654/2009. This Forum set aside the demand notice and directed reconnection of the electricity connection. In spite of that, the opposite party issued the impugned bill towards unauthorised connected load for the period from October 2007 to June 2009. The objections submitted by the complainant has not been considered by the opposite party. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the impugned bill set aside and seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings.

2. In spite of service of notice from this Forum, the opposite parties did not respond to the same for reasons of their own. Proof affidavit has been filed by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Heard the counsel for the complainant.

3. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned bill set aside?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

4. Point No. i. :- At the outset, vide order dated 31-08-2011 this Forum passed the following order :

“6. In view of our finding that Exts. A3 and A6 bills are barred by limitation, we need not dwelve on other points of law raised by the complainant. Eventhough the aforesaid bills are set aside, this order will not come in the way of the opposite parties issuing fresh penal bill for having exceeded authorised connected load, for recovery of charges which is not barred by limitation. The question of affording him opportunity for regularization does not arise since the ownership over the premises admittedly has been transferred by the complainant.

7. To summarize, the complaint is allowed as follows :

Exts. A3 and A6 bills are set aside. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to issue fresh bill against the complainant over the same subject provided law of limitation is not violated as explained above.”

5. Point No. ii. :- The present demand as per Ext. A2 is the bill for the period from October 2007 to June 2009. As per Ext. A1 order this Forum categorically stated that the opposite parties are entitled to issue a fresh bill only after considering the period of limitation as amended in Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003 read with Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. In the given circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that Ext. A2 as well is vitiated by limitation. Therefore, we have no other option, but to set aside Ext. A2. Ordered accordingly. Since no other order would go to further console the grievances of the complainant, the same having been met earlier in his favour. No order as to compensation and costs of the proceedings.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========