THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bidhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 388 /2009
Friday, the 29th day of January, 2011.
Petitioner : Padmaraju. T.R
Pops Super Market,
Nagampadom,
S.H Mount P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Vinu Jacob Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vidhudhi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Asst. Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Kottayam East.
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner is filed o 31..12..2009 is as follows.
Petitioner has taken on lease the buildings having No. 203 C and 203 D belongs to Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. Petitioner is conducting business in the said building under the name Pops Super Markets. The above said 2 rooms having electric connection, provided by the opposite party, with vide consumer numbers 15495 and 15496. The meter charges were verified by the employees of the opposite parties every month and bills were issued accordingly and the petitioner remitted same without any default. On 21..10..2009 an inspection was conducted by the Divisional squad of the opposite party and informed the petitioner that 2 connections in one institution is not permissible and they found an unauthorized additional load of 3 KW. penal bill for Rs. 45102 was issued to the petitioner According to the petitioner opposite party was
-2-
well aware of the existence of both connection because the meter reader was taking meter reading every month and issuing bills for the institution. The petitioner filed objection to the provisional bill and there after on 30..10..2009 opposite party issued a final bill for an amount of Rs. 35123/-. Petitioner applied for installments and 4 installments were granted by the opposite party for Rs. 1,000/- each. Petitioner properly remitted first and second installments and 3rd installment will due only on March 2010. As per the direction given by the opposite party petitioner applied for dismantling of one of the 2 connection on 28..10..2009 by remitting Rs. 10/- as fees. There after the second opposite party informed the petitioner that an application of the owner of the building is also necessary. Hence another application was made by the KSCARD Bank on12..11..2009. Moreover a diagram of the connection as required by the opposite party was got prepared licensed contractor and has been submitted before the second opposite party for clubbing the 2 connections. There after opposite party issued 2 bills to the petitioner altogether for an amount of amount Rs. 22,082/-. On enquiry by the petitioner opposite party informed the petitioner that the bill was issued for not clubbing the 2 connections. When the petitioner informed that applications are already been filed opposite party replied that the same was missing. According to the petitioner he submitted application for regularization in proper time and also paid the required amount by fulfilling the conditions put forward by the opposite party. Act of the opposite party in not processing the application filed by the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction declaring that he is not liable to pay the bill Dtd: 9..12..2009 for an amount of Rs. 22,082/-. Petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to club the 2
-3-
connections having consumer No. 15495 and 15496/-. Petitioner claims Rs. 2,500 as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Electric connections bearing No. 15495 & 15496 are now enjoyed by the petitioner. Both connection were registered in the name of Regional Manager, KSCARD (KTM). Opposite party admitted that the petitioner is running Super Market in the building owned by KSCARD Bank. According to the opposite party above building is comprised of several rooms and separate electric connections are provided to these rooms. The meter reader had taken meter reading and issued spot bills to the petitioner. The meter reader will not conducted a thorough inspection of the premises. As per the records single phase connections, consumer No. 15495 and consumer No. 15496 were given to two distinct, separate rooms of the building owned by the Co-Op. Bank. The sanctioned load of consumer No. 15495 is 2 KWA and that of consumer No. 15496 is 1 KW. After taking the rooms for rent by the petitioner the rooms were modified and clubbed in to one . Due to this act of the petitioner 2 different electric connections were happened to be on one premises. Modification is not intimated to the opposite parties. As per clause No. 21 (7) (f) of terms and conditions of the supply 2005 two different connection for same purpose is not allowable. On 21..10..2009 the premises of the petitioner was inspected by the officers of the opposite party. The site mahazar was prepared and penal bill was issued for unauthorized use of electrical energy on 28..10..2009. Petitioner filed objection to the second opposite party against the provisional bill. A separate application was also filed by the petitioner on 28..10..2009 and requested the Assistant Engineer to dismantle the consumer No. 15496. Application was not
-4-
considered because as the petitioner is not the registered consumer. As the petitioner raised the contention against the connected load particulars premises was inspected by the second opposite party. During this visit it is seen that there is a non deliberate mistake taken place in calculating the connected load of UPS. Considering the objection the provisional bill was finalized by assessing an amount of Rs. 35123/-. As per the request of the petitioner sanction was given to remit revised penalized bill in 4 installments and the total amount had been remitted by the petitioner. In order to club 2 connections some standard official procedures are to be followed. Naturally the registered owner has to apply for any modification/alteration in connected load or for clubbing or dismantling of service. Petitioner was instructed to produce completion report signed by the actual registered consumer and a request letter for clubbing these service connections. On 29..10..2009 petitioner produced the completion report and sketch. On scrutiny of the application it is learned that petitioner himself put his signature in the completion report instead of registered consumer. Under such circumstances petitioner was again instructed to produced the completion report and sketch. On 27..1..2010 attested copy of the letter of the Regional Manager Dtd: 12..11..2009 addressed to the second opposite party was produced by the petitioner. Opposite party is ready to regularize UAL of the petitioner if the completion report submitted is signed by the original consumer if the additional connection deposit is remitted. As per the terms and conditions of supply penalty for UAL shall be levied till the UAL is removed or regularized as per rules. In the case of the petitioner he has not regularized the load so far. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
-5-
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties, and
deposition of PW1 and 2 and Ext.A1 to A13 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B9 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Petitioner has no dispute regard to the inspection Dtd: 21..10..2009 and the final bill Dtd: 30..10..2009, for an amount of Rs. 35123/-. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in not clubbing the 2 connections as per his application Dtd: 28..10..2009 and penalization after submission of the application amounts to deficiency in Service. Petitioner stated that he applied for dismantling 2 connections
on 28..10..2009 and for the same he remitted Rs. 10/- as directed by the opposite party. The second opposite party informed the petitioner that an application of the owner of the building is also necessary for processing the application submitted by the petitioner. On 12..12..2009 petitioner submitted another application along with diagram of the connection. According to the petitioner penalizing the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 22082/- after completing the formality for clubbing of the connection amounts to deficiency in service. Opposite party admitted about the submission of the application and the completion report on 29..10..2009 and remittance of the application fee. But according to opposite party on scrutinizing the completion report and sketch it is learned that the petitioner has put his signature in the completion report instead of registered consumer. In such a circumstance the second opposite
-6-
party instructed the complainant to produce the commission report and sketch duly signed by the original consumer . Petitioner produced a copy of the letter of the Regional Manager of the bank Dtd: 12..11..2009. Opposite party produced the application submitted by the petitioner on 29..10..2009 said document is marked as Ext. B10. According to the opposite party since B10 was not signed by the registered consumer it cannot be processed. So the opposite party instructed the petitioner to produce proper completion report and sketch. According to the petitioner on 12..11..2009 they requested the opposite party through KSCARD Bank for clubbing of the 2 connections copy of the application produced by the petitioner is marked as Ext. A9. . In Ext. A9 date of despatch is shown as 12..11..2009 opposite party on the other hand contented that said application was received to the office of the opposite party only on 27..1..2010. Opposite party produced the copy of the A9 received to them. Said document produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext. B7. In Ext. B7 also the date of despatch from the bank is shown as 12..11..2009. But the date of receipt is shown as 27..1..2009. Without the production of any inward register we cannot able to believe that the said letter was received on 27..1..2010. On the other hand the petitioner examined one sub staff of the KSCARD Bank as PW1 to prove that Ext. A9 was despatched on 12..11..2009. As per law if the petitioner proved that the letter was despatched on 12..11..2009 the burden will shift to the sholders of opposite party to prove that the same was only received on 27..1..2010. Opposite party vehumently argued that since the application was not in proper form they cannot able to process the same. According to the opposite party even though registered owner had given a Cheque for Rs. 3500/- to the opposite party on 5..3..2010 since an application for regularization was not processed by the registered consumer
-7-
opposite party returned the Cheque along with a letter dtd: 6..3..2010 and the letter is marked as Ext. B9. In our view on going through the entire evidence in this case we are of the view that Ext. B10 application was accepted by the opposite party on 29..10..2009. The overseer of the opposite party inspected the premises on 28..11..2009 and requested the petitioner to deposit ACD. Thus as per Ext. B8 petitioner deposited the ACD and as per Ext. B9 opposite party return the ACD deposit. Further more without any intimation on lame excuse opposite party has not processed the application submitted by the petitioner. On submission of an application from the very day of detection of unauthorized additional load by the petitioner shown his bonafidness in removing the unauthorized use of electricity. In our view due to the will full latches and negligence on the part of the opposite party the connections of the petitioner were not clubbed and act of the opposite party amounting to clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill dtd: 9..12..2009 for an amount of Rs. 22082/- is cancelled. On fulfilling the formalities contemplated by the law opposite party is directed to club the 2 connections having consumer No. 15495 and 15496. With retrospective effect from 12..11..2009.
Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29th day of January,2011
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
-8-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of licence issued by the Secretary, Kumaranelloor Grama Panchayath
Ext. A2: Lr. No. NN/SS/2009-10/22..10..2009
Ext. A3: Order No. DB/SS/09-10/Dtd: 30..10..2009
Ext. A4: Receipt No. 255 Dtd: 6..11..2009
Ext. A5: Receipt Dtd:6..2..2010
Ext. A6: Copy of letter Dtd: 28..10..2009 issued from pops Super Market to A.E. KSEB
Ext. A7: Receipt Dtd: 28..10..2009
Ext. A8: Letter Dtd: 28..10..2009 issued by the POPS Market to the Regional Manager, KSCARD Bank.
Ext. A9: Letter Dtd: 12..11..2009 issued from the KSCARD Bank to A.E KSEB.
Ext. A10: Copy of rough sketch prepared by a contractor
Ext. A11: Copy of bill Dtd: : 9..12..2009 for Rs. 14,785/-
Ext. A12: Copy of bill Dtd:: 9..12..2009
Ext. A13: Bill Dtd: 9..12..2009
Ext. A14: Copy of extract of despatch register of KSCARD Bank
Ext. A15: Copy of Cheque dtd: 5..3..2010
Ext. A15(a) Copy of receipt with vide No. 122038
Ext. A16: Copy of Letter Dtd: 5..3..2010 issued from the AE to KSCARD Bank.
Ext. A17: Copy of Letter Dtd: 6..3..2010 issued from KSEB to KSCARD Bank.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1: Copy of site Mahazar Dtd: 21..10..2009
Ext. B2: Copy of bill Dtd: 22..1..2009
Ext. B3: Copy of Letter No. BB/SS/2009-10/Dtd: 22..10..2009
Ext. B4: Copy of letter Dtd: 27..10..2009 issued from the POPS Super Market to the A.E. KSEB.
Ext. B5: Copy of letter dtd: 28..10..2009 issued from POPS Super Market to the A.E. KSEB
Ext. B6: Order No. DB/SS-9-10/Dtd: 30..10..2009
Ext. B7: Copy of letter dtd: 12..11..2009 issued by the Regional Manager to A.E. KSEB
Ext. B8: Receipt No. 122038 Dtd: 5..3..2010
Ext. B9 Copy of letter BB/SS/2009-10/S1 Dt: 6..3..2010
Ext. B10: Application submitted by the petitioner dtd: 29..10..2009
Witness of petitioner
PW1: K.G Gopalakrishnan
PW2: P.A Parameswaran Nair
Witness of opposite party
DW1: Abhilash V.S
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
