BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/12/2009

Date of Order : 31/08/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 654/2009

Between

 

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The summary of facts around the complaint :

The complainant is the owner of the property where the opposite party has supplied a Three Face Electric connection bearing consumer No. 9656-4 under Tariff at LT VII-A. The said premises was rented out to the tenant by name M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. from 15-07-2004 to 15-11-2007. Thereafter, the said premises was lying vacant till 24-04-2009 on which date it was sold out to a third party. The complainant had been regularly paying electricity charges during the period from 15-11-2007 to 24-04-2009. On 03-09-2009, the 2^nd opposite party issued a demand cum disconnection notice for Rs. 50,592/- towards unauthorized additional connected load of 5 KW with effect from 28-11-2006 on the basis of spot inspection report. The opposite party had never sent any notice of such spot inspection and that neither the copy of spot inspection report nor the copy of demand notice/invoice was served on the complainant. On 07-12-2009, the opposite parties issued a bill demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 92,841/- and on 5-12-2009 dismantled the electric connection. They resumed connection when the opposite parties came to know of the present complaint. In the back ground of the above set of facts, the complaint is filed to have the aforesaid bills set aside and for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. The version filed by the opposite parties challenges the very maintainability of the complaint in the face of amendment to Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act. As per Regulation 19 (3) of Terms and conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, it is the duty of registered consumer to intimate transfer of right of occupancy of the premises within 7 days to the Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer. That has not occurred in the case of the purported transfer of the ownership. On 28-11-2006, the officials of the K.S.E.B. conducted an inspection in the premises of the consumer No. 9656 and detected unauthorized additional load to the tune of 5 KW. Accordingly, a bill for an amount of Rs. 4,500/- was issued and the consumer remitted the amount without protest. It was directed by the Board to remove all the electrical equipments, which were unauthorisedly connected by the consumer, nor has he regularized the unauthorised additional load in the premises. The notice on detection of additional unauthorised load was served on 28-11-2006 which was acknowledged by the consumer. The bill dated 25-09-2009 for Rs. 50,592/- has not been remitted by the consumer till date. The opposite party never disconnected electricity connection to the consumer No. 9656. The opposite party can make legal claims only against the registered consumer as the privity of contract is only with him . The complainant has by-passed his remedy of appeal before higher authorities under Section 127 of the Act. Hence, it is prayed that the complainant is not eligible for any relief.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6 were marked for him. No evidence on the part of the opposite parties. Argument note was filed by the complainant. The learned counsel appearing for him was heard.

4. The points that arose for determination are :-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to remit the impugned bill amount?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A3 demand notice cum disconnection notice issued by the 2^nd opposite party against the complainant directing him to pay Rs. 50,592/- lies at the focal point of the dispute between the parties in the complaint. Subsequent to that Ext. A6 bill dated 14-12-2009 asking him to pay Rs. 92,841/- was also issued. Ext. A4 letter dated 25-11-2009 was issued by the 2^nd opposite party explaining why he was made liable to pay Rs. 50,592/-. Copy of the notice that had been forwarded to his erstwhile tenant asking him to pay Rs. 4,500/- towards penalty for having exceeded the authorized connected load to the extent of 5 KW in the year 2006 is also enclosed with Ext. A4 letter addressed to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that in the said notice instruction had been given to remove the unauthorised connections and put the 2^nd opposite party under notice of the same. Admittedly, the complainant has not done it hitherto. Nor the complainant has a case that he had regularized the unauthorised load. But Ext. A2 (series) would show that in those bills no demand was made with regard to penalty for unauthorised connected load. In that view of the matter, one cannot say that the amount under dispute was continuously in arrears. Therefore, we are of the view that the demand is barred by limitation. It is stated in Ext. A4 letter that the unauthorised connected load was detected on 28-11-2006. Consequently, notice was issued to the complainant's tenant for payment of Rs. 4,500/- which was paid. Subsequent to that remittance, nothing took place from either side with regard to unauthorised connected load. In this context, Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is relevant. The provision is extracted below :

“(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has bee shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supply and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.”

The regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 embodies the spirit of the above provision. It is our considered view that Ext. A3 bill is not justified in law since it is barred by limitation. Ext. A6 bill also is vitiated by limitation.

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, however, 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 have 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.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President. 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

=========

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

By Hand ::