BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 18th day of November 2015
Filed on : 19-04-2013
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.290/2013
Between
Vanchinad Residents Owners : Complainant
Association, VIP Road, Kaloor, (By Adv. Saji Mathew,
Cochin-17, Sunil C.G., S.G. Chancery Chambers,
rep. By its Secretary Mrs. Moly E.V. 64/3147, Kalabhavan road, Cochin-18)
And
1. Kerala State Electricity Board, : Opposite parties
Represented by its Chief Engineer,
KSEB, Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.
2. Assistant Engineer, (2nd O.P. By Adv. Ieans C.
Electrical Section, Kaloor, Chamakkala, 1st floor, Prabhath
Cochin-17. Buildings, T.D. Road, Cochin-11)
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
The complainant in this case was filed by Vanchinad Residents Owners Association who had filed the complaint against KSEB and Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kaloor, Kochi.
The complainant's case
The complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party having consumer No. 5577/8 coming under LT-1A tariff. The complainant Association consists of 31 flats owners occupying in 'Vanchinad Residency' Apartment Complex constructed more than a decade ago. The opposite parties after having levied excessive amount towards electricity bill during April 2011 to January 2012. have now illegally raised a short assessment bill without justification and have proceeded to disconnect the electric connection offered to the complainant. The average usage of the electricity required for the common areas of the apartment had never exceeded more than 1000 units. The opposite party claimed that the complainant had consumed excessive energy during the period from April 2011 to January 2012 and therefore they have to make an additional security deposit of Rs. 36,994/-. When the complainant raised the grievance before they opposite parties they attended the matter and the problem relating to excessive billing was rectified and the next bill had come down substantially. There was a promise by the opposite parties to refund or adjust the excessive amount collected during April 2011 to January 2012. However no action was taken. Thereafter on 11-03-2013 the opposite parties have made another short assessment bill claiming for the period between April 2010 to March 2011 demanding an amount of Rs. 1,28,507/- as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code. The Board was not supposed to recover any arreas of after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been continuously shown in the bill as recoverable arrears. Therefore the opposite parties are legally disentitled to issue short assessment bill for the period prior to 2 years and accordingly the short assessment raised by the 2nd opposite party is liable to be withdrawn. Though this matter was pointed out by the complainant before the opposite party they did not respond to it positively. Therefore the complainants have prayed for a direction to the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection in respect of Consumer No. 5577/8 and to direct the opposite party to withdraw the bill dated 11-03-2013 having No. 55746/- dated 11-03-2013. It is also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to materially assess the excessive amount collected by them during the period March 2011 to January 2012 and to refund the excess amount collected. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages is also sought for by the complainant through this complaint.
Notice was issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their version contending inter-alia as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. KSEB has not been represented by the competent authority who is a Secretary of KSEB Board. The allegation that the opposite party had issued an excessive bill for the period from April 2011 to January 2012 is denied. The bill was issued on the basis of the actual consumption recorded in the new meter installed on 11-04-2011 in the premises. The short assessment bill was raised as per the finding of the Audit wing of the Accountant General vide Audit Report No. ECA/II/B/8-5252/IR/204/659 dated 15-11-2012. The short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 1,28,507/- was prepared on 11-03-2013 and it was issued to the consumer along with a letter showing the details and it was acknowledged by the complainant as per Exbt. B1. The date of disconnection was clearly mentioned in the bill as on 11-04-2013 after 30 days of the bill date and disconnection was done as per the rules. The bill was issued to rectify the mistake in billing due to application of the multiplication factor as 10 instead of 40. The consumption read in the meter has to be multiplied with 40 to get the quantum of energy consumed. But is was taken as 10 by mistake. Since the security deposit of the consumer was only Rs. 18,000/- was insufficient, additional security deposit was demanded from the consumer based on the consumption and that was why the cash deposit of Rs. 18,994/- was demanded. The complainant is not entitled to get any refund since the opposite party have subsequently cleared the mistake in collecting less amount due to wrong calculation earlier. The short assessment bill was issued on the basis of the finding of the Accountant General, Audit for the period from April 2010 to March 2011 who found that there was wrong multiplication factor applied during the period April 2011 to March 2012. The amount of charges would become due and payable only with the submission of the bill and therefore the complainant can not take shelter on the ground that 2 years have been elapsed from the date of demand. In this case the bill was issued on 11-03-2013 and served on the consumer on 11-03-2013, therefore there is no irregularity. The opposite parties entitled to recover the amount under charged from the consumer by issuing a bill. Disconnection was done after giving 30 days to remit the short assessment bill. Therefore the complaint is sought to be dismissed.
3. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant has proved that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged?
ii. Is there any unfair trade practice found in the action of the opposite parties on the allegation
iii. Reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence of Exbt. A1 to A22 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence. Heard both sides.
5. Issue Nos. i&ii. Exbt. A1 is demand for energy charges by making a short assessment for an amount of Rs. 1,28,507/-. It is shown in Exbt. A1 that the energy levied was only Rs. 33,907/- earlier due to the wrong calculation. When an amount of Rs. 1,62,414/- was the amount which should have been actually chargeable. Exbt. A1 is dated 11-03-2013 and the levy was in respect of the energy allegedly used during the period from 2010 – 2011. Document numbers 2 to 22 are the electricity bills issued during 2010 to 2012. On going through the documents produced by the complainant it is seen that regular bills were being sent to the complainants during the period 2010 to 2012 and the complainant was regularly making payments as per those bills. The short assessment bill was made by the opposite party only on the ground that there was a mistake on the part of the staff of the opposite party who made a wrong calculation in respect of the energy consumed by the complainant. The mistake committed by the opposite party can not be realized through the hands of the complainant. The complainant were asked to pay a substantial amount within a short period for no fault of them. The opposite party having admitted the mistake having committed by themselves, it is inappropriate to demand the deficit amount from the complainant in arbitrary way. It is seen that an amount of Rs. 1,28,507/- was sought to be recovered by the complainant through the short assessment bill, which we find is a practice which would be unfair. By demanding such a huge amount at a stretch from the complainant, the opposite party had definitely committed deficiency in service. The issues are therefore found against the opposite party. It is true that there was no challenge on the part of the complainant with regard to the meter readings. There is no complaint that the meter was defective. The mistake was only in the matter of calculation of the amount due. Therefore the complainants are actually bound to pay the amount demanded but that amount should have been paid bi-monthly if proper bills were delivered to them. Now having demanded the entire dues in a lump sum, we find that it is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
6. Issue No. iii. Having found issue Nos. 1 and 2 as above we find that
i. the complainants are liable to make the payment as per demand in the short assessment bill. But that they cannot be forced to pay the entire demand shown in the short assessment bill in a lump sum. Therefore the demand for short assessment bill made by the opposite party as such is found to be unenforceable. At the same time the opposite party is found entitled to collect the entire amount as per the short assessment bill adjusted in the future bimonthly bill to be given to the complainant. We find that the complainants are entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation on the said count.
ii. The complainants are found entitled to realize a compensation for the mental agony suffered by them and the inconvenience caused to them by providing Exbt. A1 provisional bills to them and we find that the complainants are entitled to get compensation for that. We find that the complainants are entitled to realize an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation on the said count.
iii. The complainants are also found entitled to get costs of the proceedings of Rs. 3,000/-.
The above said orders shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the18th day of November 2015
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/ByOrder,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 11/03/2013
A2 : Copy of notice dt. 16-01-2006
A3 : “ “ dt. 05-05-2011
A4 : “ “ dt. 06-06-2011
A5 : “ “ dt. 05-07-2011
A6 : “ “ dt. 05-08-2013
A7 : “ “ dt. 07-10-2011
A8 : “ “ dt. 05-11-2011
A9 : “ “ dt. 05-01-2011
A10 : “ “ dt. 06-04-2010
A11 : “ “ dt. 07-05-2010
A12 : “” “ dt. 05-06-2010
A13 : “ “ dt. 06-07-2010
A14 : “ “ dt. 05-08-2010
A15 : “ “ dt. 06-09-2010
A16 : “ “ dt. 05-10-2010
A17 : “ “ dt. 06-11-2010
A18 “ “ “ dt. 06-12-2010
A19 : “ “ dt. 07-04-2012
A20 : “ “ dt. 05-07-2012
A21 : “ “ dt. 05-09-2012
A22 : “ “ dt. 05-04-2015
Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
