IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No. 127/2008 Between: V.S. Rajendran, Vadakkekara House, Thannithodu P.O., ThannithoduVillage, Kozhencherry Taluk. (By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) .... Complainant. And: - Kerala State Electricity Board represented by
its Secretary, Kerala State Electricity- Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. - Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Konni. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The complainant’s case is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No.4602019661. The said connection is taken for a workshop, which manufactures grills, and gates and the name of his workshop is RVS Industries. The complainant is running the said workshop for his livelihood. The electric connection was taken during October 2001 after complying all the formalities for getting the connection. Since then he was paying the electricity bills issued by the opposite parties prepared on the basis of the reading taken by the Sub Engineer of the second opposite party. During October, 2007 the complainant installed a new 1½ H.P. compressor after complying the formalities including installation of an 8 KVAR capacitor as per the direction of the second opposite party. Till this time, the complainant is not a defaulter to the opposite parties as he had paid the monthly bills promptly. While so, the second opposite party issued a demand notice dated 16.08.2008 directing the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.11,578/-. The said bill was issued as the calculation of short assessment from 4/2003 to 9/2007. On enquiry with the second opposite party, the complainant came to know that the capacitor used in the complainant’s workshop was insufficient during that period. But the insufficiency of the capacitor was not intimated to the complainant till the date of issue of the demand notice dated 16.08.2008. The opposite parties’ officials are regularly visiting the workshop once in every month. If the second opposite party properly intimated the insufficiency of the capacitor, the present bill could have been avoided. So the issuance of the present bill dated 16.08.2008 for Rs.11,578/- is without any bonafides and unjust and unfair and against the law which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint for setting aside the bill issued by the second opposite party and for allowing Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony sustained to the complainant along with cost of this complaint. 3. The opposite parties filed their version with the following contentions: The complainant’s electric connection is for the purpose of running an industry namely RVS Industries. The complainant was provided with an electric connection on the basis of the completion report and other required documents. As per the completion report, the capacitor required for this connection is 6 KVAR. But the complainant installed only a 4 KVAR capacitor at the time of effecting the connection. Later when the complainant installed additional load during 9/07, the second opposite party insisted to install 8 KVAR capacitor and he had installed the same. But the Regional Audit Officer conducted an audit on accounts of Electrical Section, Konni and in his audit report dated 11.01.2008 recommended to charge 30% extra on fixed charge and current charge for the period from 4/03 to 8.07 as the complainant is using the electricity without sufficient capacitor prescribed by the K.S.E. Board vide publication in the official gazette. The disputed bill is based on the audit report and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount and the said bill is as per rules and is not a penal bill. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with cost, as they have not committed any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence of this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and DW1 based on their proof affidavits and Exts.A1 and B1 to B6. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard. 6. Points 1 to 3: In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with one documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A1 is the impugned bill No.E4-6020001043 dated 16.08.2008 issued by the opposite parties demanding Rs.11,578/- along with calculation of short assessment from 4/03 to 9/07. PW1 was cross-examined by the authorised officer of the opposite parties. 7. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the authorised officer of the opposite parties filed a proof affidavit and 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the authorised officer of the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B6. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the Gazette Notification No.1163 dated 07.08.2001. Ext.B2 is the installation completion report submitted by a licensed electrical contractor regarding the completion of the wiring work of the complainant’s industrial unit at the time of sanctioning the complainant’s electric connection. Ext.B3 is the photocopy of the audit report dated 11.01.2008 attached with the calculation statement prepared by the Regional Audit Officer. Ext.B4 is the photocopy of the agreement-dated 30.10.2001 executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. Ext.B5 is the photocopy of the L.T. Power Capacitor Test Report dated 06.08.2001 in respect of the capacitor installed in the complainant’s industrial unit. Ext.B6 is the photocopy of the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite parties along with its installation completion report, capacitor test certificate etc. DW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant. 8. The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have demanded an amount of Rs.11,578/- by saying that the complainant has not installed the proper capacitor to his industrial unit. According to the complainant, he had obtained electric connection as per the rules of the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have never informed about the insufficiency of the capacitor in his unit. So the act of the opposite parties in issuing such a bill is illegal and hence he prays for the quashing of the said bill. 9. The opposite parties’ contention is that, the completion report and other relevant documents shows that the complainant’s industrial unit requires 6 KVAR capacitor whereas the complainant had installed only 4 KVAR capacitor. The deficiency of the capacitor was noticed by the Regional Audit Officer during his audit. The impugned bill was prepared and served to the complainant as per the audit report and it is legal and the complainant is liable to remit the bill amount. 10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the materials on record. It is true that the capacitor installed is not sufficient as per the rules. It is also a fact that the complainant’s electric connection was sanctioned as per the prevailing rules of the K.S.E. Board. It is pertinent to note that, before sanctioning the complainant’s electrical connection, the opposite parties have conducted inspection and also they have verified the relevant documents submitted by the complainant along with the complainant’s application for a new electric connection. As per Ext.B1 Gazette Notification, Ext.B2 completion report, Ext.B4 agreement, the complainant’s industrial unit requires 6 KVAR capacitor. The date of Gazette Notification is 07.08.2001. But Exts. B2 and B4 were executed and processed during 10/2001 i.e. after the publication of Ext.B1 Gazette Notification. Ext.B5 Test report is also the part of the complainant’s application, which shows that the complainant’s industrial unit was installed with 4 KVAR capacitor. All the above said facts shows that, before sanctioning the complainant’s electric connection, the opposite parties noticed that the complainant had installed only 4 KVAR capacitor instead of 6 KVAR capacitor. If that be so, why the opposite parties have sanctioned a new electric connection to the complainant ignoring the insufficiency of the capacitor. Why they are silent for so many years in implementing Ext.B1 Gazette Notification? The said willful silence created the present problems to the complainant. In the circumstances, the complainant’s contention that he was not informed about the insufficiency of the capacitor at any point of time and if he was informed about this, he might have installed the proper capacitor and this illegal bill would have been avoided, can be accepted. Therefore, we find that the issuance of Ext.A1 bill is illegal and it has to be set aside and hence we hereby set aside Ext.A1 bill. In the nature and circumstances of this complaint, we are not inclined to allow cost and compensation. 11. In the result, this complaint is allowed partly, as ordered herein above. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of February, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witnes examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Rajendran. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Impugned bill No.E4-6020001043 dated 16.08.2008 issued by the opposite parties demanding Rs.11,578/- along with calculation of short assessment from 4/03 to 9/07. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : Harikumar. B. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Photocopy of the Gazette Notification No.1163 dated 07.08.2001. B2 : Installation Completion Report submitted by a licensed electrical contractor regarding the completion of the wiring work of the complainant’s industrial unit. B3 : Photocopy of the audit report dated 11.01.2008 prepared by the Regional Audit Officer attached with the calculation statement. B4 : Photocopy of the agreement-dated 30.10.2001 executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. B5 : Photocopy of the L.T. Power Capacitor Test Report dated 06.08.2001 in respect of the capacitor installed in the complainant’s industrial unit. B6 : Photocopy of the agreement executed between the complainant and the opposite parties. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) V.S. Rajendran, Vadakkekara House, Thannithodu P.O., ThannithoduVillage, Kozhencherry Taluk. (2) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) The Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Konni. (4) The Stock File. | 
