PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 28-03-2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 201/2012
Between
Elsy Pappachan, : Complainant
Panikulanagara house, (By Adv. M.S. Unnikrishnan,
Kunnukara P.O., M/s. Lawyers United, Door No.
Ernakulam-683 524. 50/A, Opp. Panampilly Nagar,
Ladies Slub, Panampilly Nagar,
Kochi-36)
And
1. K.S.E.B. : Opposite parties
Rep. by Secretary, (By Adv. M.B. Prajith, K-179/2000
Kerala State Electricity board, P-406, Chamber No. 446, KHAAC,
Vaidhyuthi Bhavan, Near Kerala High Court, Ernakulam.
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Assistant Engineer,
KSEB Section Office,
Kunnukara P.O.-683 524.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is an electricity consumer under Kunnukara section of KSEB. She executed MG Agreement on 31-03-1997. As per the MG scheme the opposite party is assuring minimum revenue from a consumer towards investment made by the opposite party. As per clause (4) of the MG agreement the minimum guaranteed amount can be charged only until the line extension has become self remunerative. By 2001 the number of consumers who have taken connection from the same line. More than that the KSEB started using the same line as an interlink between feeder 1 and feeder 2 of the Transformer. The complainant cannot be burdened with or need not bear with the expense to installation of a line which is being utilized by KSEB for public utility purpose. Against arrears letter dated 18-12-2004 and later on 12-01-2005 proper reply were filed by the complainant. After 12-01-2005 there was no response from the opposite party till the date which shows that KSEB is satisfied with the reply given by the complainant. There was no proceedings after 2005 and time elapsed is more than 7 years hence the claim is barred by limitation. Therefore the complainant is seeking following reliefs against the opposite parties.
i. to declare the impugned bill dated 29-02-2012 null and void, compensation for mental agony and litigation costs to the complainant.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The complainant had availed the electrical connection on 06-12-1997 with connected load of 15420 watts under industrial tariff after executing minimum guarantee agreement on 31-03-1997. The minimum guarantee amount of the consumer was Rs. 1,390/- As per the minimum guarantee agreement the consumer has to remit the minimum guarantee amount or current charges whichever is higher. The complainant had remitted the current charge which was less than the minimum guarantee amount in some months due to clerical mistake. The contention that 52 connections were given from line is false. Only one industrial connection was given on 21-07-2000 from the said line. The complainant’s connection was disconnected on 28-04-2001. According to the minimum guarantee agreement the complainant is bound to remit the minimum guarantee amount for seven years i.e. up to 31st March 2004. The contention that the line of the complainant is used as inter link between feeder 1 and 2 is not correct. The line is not became self remunerative. Even though the line was constructed for a particular consumer under minimum guarantee, the Board has every right to give connections from the said line. The complainant did not comply with the agreement executed between her and the Board. Hence she is liable to pay the amount. As the complainant defaulted in payment more than 6 months the service connection was dismantled and revenue recovery proceedings was initiated. The revenue recovery notice was served upon the complainant on 12-01-2005 itself. Hence there is no question of delay as per the Limitation Act or under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Board had given the complainant an opportunity to clear the dues at a reduced rate of 9% interest. The complainant was not willing to accept the one time settlement scheme and to remit the reduced amount. Hence the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost to the opposite party.
3. The complainant and the opposite parties appeared through the counsel. Te complainant adduced only oral evidence. Exts. A1 to A6 were marked on her side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the authorized representative of the complainant.
4. The following points deserve our attention
i. Whether the impugned bill is justified in law?
ii. What are the reliefs if any?
iii. Compensation and costs if any?
5. Points Nos. i to iii. The complainant contented that as per the minimum guarantee agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties the minimum guarantee amount can be charged only until the line extension has become self remunerative. She further contented that she was called upon to pay the dues in the year of 2004 and the claim is barred by limitation.
6. According to the opposite parties the complainant defaulted the payment for more than 6 months and the connection was dismantled and Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated on 12-01-2005 itself. Therefore no question of delay or limitation.
Ext. A1 bill dated 29-02-2012 goes to show that the complainant was called upon to pay the dues with interest from 15-01-2001 to 15-02-2004. Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act 2003 read as under “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 been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the license shall not cut off the supply of electricity”. Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply code, 2005 also covers recovery of any amount beyond the period of 2 years from the due date. Therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain the levy of the amount specified in the impugned Ext. A1 bill dated 29/02/2012. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not allowing any compensation since the very purpose of the complainant is fulfilled.
7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and accordingly Ext. A1 bill dated 29/02/2012 is set aside.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Notice dt. 29-02-2012
A2 : Notice dt. 18-12-2012
A3 : Copy of letter
A4 : Copy of letter dt. 12-01-2005
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 13-03-2001
A6 : Copy of minimum guarantee
agreement
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
