SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order restraining the opposite party or their subordinates, men coolies and labourers from disconnecting electric connection of the Ashram building bearing consumer No.1166479001683 by the complainant and to provide correct bill to the complainant in respect of electric connection of the Ashram building bearing consumer No. 1166479001683 and to pay cost to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.
The case of the complainant in brief
The complainant is the superior of Mary Giri Ashram. The purpose and motto of the congregation is to work for the welfare of the world at large irrespective of cast, creed and sex. The congregation constructed a building their in for the residence of inmates of congregation consist of chapel and rooms for the brother sand d visitors. No hostel or lodging facility arranged in the Ashramam. The close vicinity of the ashramam the congregation is conducting a school in the name of Mary Giri English medium School also. The school and ashramam is having separate entity and managed separate officials of the congregation. The OP provided electric connection to the Ashram building owned by the complainant bearing consumer No.1166479001683. The said connection is provided to the Ashram building since there is no commercial activity is conducting in the Ashram building. The OPs provided electric connection to the Marygiri English medium senior school building owned by the manager of the school bearing consumer No.1166476024618. On 10/11/2020 the subordinate of OP No.3 as well as the labours visited the CST Marigiri Ashram and provided a bill bearing No.6647201106974 dated 10/11/2020 for an amount of Rs.3,79,427/- and noted that ആശ്രമത്തിൽ താരിഫ് നല്കിയ വൈദ്യുതി സ്വകാര്യ സ്വശ്രയ സ്ക്കൂൾ ഹോസ്റ്റൽ ആവശ്യങ്ങളിലേക്ക് ഉപയോഗപ്പെടുത്തിയതുകൊണ്ട് വൈദ്യുതി ബോർഡ് ലിമിറ്റഡിനുണ്ടായ നഷ്ടം ബഹു സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ 8350/2009-ാം നമ്പർ സിവിൽ അപ്പീലിന്മേൽ 20/02/2020 തീയ്യതിയിലെ വിധി പ്രകാരം വൈദ്യുതി ബോർഡ് chief internal Auditor -റുടെ 02/06/2020 ലെ നിർദ്ദേശ പ്രകാരം നൽകുന്ന ബിൽ It is stated that the Ashram building was extended for boarding of boys studying in the self financing school in the Ashramam premises and major share of electricity consumption is mainly using for the boarding and hostelling purposes of this self financing educational institution. There after 31/12/2020 the subordinate of OP3 visited the ashramam building and attempt to disconnect the electricity connection. The complainant stated that the OPs issued incorrect bill to the complainant is in respect of electric connection to the Ashramam building bearing consumer NO. 1166479001683. The act of OPs complainant caused much mental agony and tension. So there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the complaint
After filing the complaint notice issued to all OPs. After receiving notice all OPs appeared before the commission and filed their written version. OP No.2 contended that he is an unnecessary party in the complaint. Transmission using of KSEB has nothing to do in bill issuing and other activities of distribution wing. So OP No.2 is an unnecessary party and may be excluded in the list of OP. The OPs also stated that consumer NO. 1166479001683 is registered in the name of Bro-superior, CST Marygiri Ashramam, Kootumugham under Electrical section, Sreekandapuram and got electric connection wef 1/2/1977 while effecting service connection, tariff was VIA, applicable for convents, etc. Later it was noted that the Ashramam building was extended for boarding of boys studying in the self financing school in the Ashramam premises and major share of electricity consumption is mainly using for the boarding and hostelling purposes of this self financing educational institution. The consumption pattern of consumer No.1166479001683 is noted that consumption is reduced drastically during summer vacation and also during Covid pandemic periods. Hostel for the students are vacated during these periods. That is the reason for reducing the electricity consumption. The connected load as on 01/2017 was 8000w and it increased to 13960 W w.e.f 3/2019. As per the self declaration made in 12/2019 connected load was 22600 W. This also reveals that electric connection is using mainly for increasing commercial usage. The change of tariff from VIA TO VIIA is 12/07 was challenged before Hon’ble High court of Kerala by the management of self financing education institution. The Hon’ble court approved the Single Bench decision vide its order on 20/02/2020 in Civil Appeal NO.8350/2009. The Hon’ble High court has validated the action of KSEB bills in similar case. Monthly bills of consumer No.1166479001683 w.e.f 11/2016 were issuing under commercial tariff and the consumer was remitting the electricity bills accordingly. The OPs also contended that the bill issued to the complainant was correct. A short assessment bill to make good the loss sustained to KSEB Ltd. by undercharging was issued and the same is justifiable under sec.134 of Kerala State Electricity supply code 2014and provided enough time period for the remittance of the bill amount. The OPs acted in accordance with law and in accordance with the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High court. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Then the complaint may be dismissed.
On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
- Relief and cost?
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A6 were marked. On OP’s side Ext.B1 marked. Both sides argued and OPs filed argument note also.
Issue No.1
The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OPs. He relied up on Ext.A1 to A6 documents to substantiate his case. IN Ext.A1 is the trust deed. Ext.A2 is the consumer NO.1166479001683 and Tariff/phase LT-6F/Three in Bill No.6647201106974 dated 10/11/2020 for an amount of Rs.3,79,447/-. In Ext.A3 is the Consumer No.1166479001683 Bill No.6647201203653 dated 02/12/2020 Tarif LT-6F/Three. In Ext.A5 is the Consumer NO. 1166476024618, bill No.6647201102856 dated 03/11/2020 Tarif LT 6G/Three and Ext.A6 is the Consumer NO.1166479001683 Bill NO.6647201102855 dated 03/11/2020 Tariff/Phase LT 6F/Three. In the evidence of Pw1 he stated that 2 connection നും ഒരേ താരിഫിൽ ഉള്ളതല്ലേ? അതേ. ഈ താരിഫ് ഫിക്സ് ചെയ്തതിൽ നിങ്ങൾക്ക് യാതൊരു തർക്കവും ഇല്ല? ഇല്ല. ഈ ബില്ല് കുടിശ്ശികയായത് കോടതിയിൽ കേസ് ഉള്ളതുകൊണ്ടാണെന്ന് പറയുന്നു? അതെ. Hon’ble High Court ലും സുപ്രീം കോടതിയിലും കേസ് ഉള്ളതുകൊണ്ടാണ് വൈകിയത്. ഇപ്പോൾ self financing college കളിൽ High താരിഫ് എന്ന് Hon’ble സുപ്രീം കോടതിയുടെ വിധി ഉണ്ട്? ഉണ്ട്. ആ ബില്ലിനാണ് നിങ്ങൾ തർക്കത്തിലുള്ളത്? അതെ. ആശ്രമത്തിെൻറ യും English medium School െൻറയും High താരിഫിൽ ആണ് എന്ന് സുപ്രീം കോടതി വിധി വന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്? ഉണ്ട്. ആശ്രമത്തിൽ വ്യവസായ വിണിജ്ജ്യ ആവശ്യത്തിന് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നില്ല എന്നതാണ് നിങ്ങളുടെ വാദം? അതെ. As per the evidence of Pw1 and Ext.A2 to A6 it is clearly shows that the Tarif/phase is LT 6F/Three. The change of tariff from VIA to VII A in 12/2007 was challenged before the Hon’ble High court of Kerala by the management of self functioning institutions. The prayer of the complainant in this case is that to provide a correct bill to the complainant in respect of their electric connection to the consumer No. 116647001683. The other connection with No.1166476024618 and it is admitted by the complainant that earlier and now both connections have the same tariff and for that the complainant has no objection for the same and the electricity charges has been paying without any protest as per the guideline issued by the Hon’ble supreme court. On OPs’ side produce Ext.B1 document to shows the assessment in respect of consumer No.1166479001683/6F for the period9/2008 to 11/2016. This Ext. A2 documents also issued to the complainants for collecting the arrears of electricity charges for the period of 2008 to 2016.
On the side of OP produced the decision reported in 2020(4)KLT 151 (SC) “Viewing the case of the appellant in that perspective in our opinion, no error was committed them in fixing higher tariff for the self financing educational institutions categories them as commercial entities. It also clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that For these reasons, we are unable to agree with the veiw of the division bench, and the judgment under appeal is set aside and the judgment of the first court is restored. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. In this case the Pw1 stated that both connections have the same tariff. So the OPs have acted in accordance with law and in accordance with the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme court. As regarding the correction of bill the complainant can approach the appropriate authority for getting relief. The OPs guided by statutes, rules regulations and circulars issued by the authorities and there is no other option for the OPs, but to comply with those rules, regulations and circulars. So there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. So the issue No.1 found in favour of the OP and answered accordingly.
Issue No.2 & 3
As discussed above due to the afore said deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties not proved by the complainant. So the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case. Thus the issue No.2 and 3 are also found against the complainant.
Hence the complainant is dismissed on the ground that the complainant is not proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. So the compensation and cost not allowed.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1 –Trust deed
A2-Bill No.6647201106974
A3-Bill No.1166476024618
A4-Bill No.1166479001683
A5-Bill No.1166476024618
A6-Bill No.1166479001683
B1-Short Assessment in Consumer No.1166479001683/6F for the period 9/2008 to 11/2016.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
