cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of October 2012
Filed on : 25/04/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 253/12
Between
Santhamma Pankajakshan, : Complainant
M/s. Bhavani Polymers, (By authorized representative)
Okkal P.O., Onampilly,
Perumbavoor-683 550.
And
1. Kerala State Electricity Board, : Opposite parties
Rep. by Secretary, (parties-in-person)
KSE Board,Vydhuthi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram, 695 004.
2. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division, KSEB,
Perumbavoor-683 542.
3. Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Division, KSEB,
Perumbavoor-683 542.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is running an SSI unit of Plastic carrier bag. She is earning her livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant availed an electricity connection bearing consumer No. 4598 (New No. 19384). The opposite party issued the impugned bill to the tune of Rs. 77,433/- stating that the electricity meter of the complainant was faulty from December 2004to October 2005. The disputed bill is highly belated and barred by limitation. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection, to declare the bill null and void and to pay costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The billing records in respect of Consumer No. 4598 was audited by the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB and detected that power meter remained faulty for the period for 12/2004 to 10/2005. Average consumption of 1549 units/month was assessed during the meter faulty period. The meter was replaced on 04-11-2005. The average consumption after meter replacement was 3546 units/month. Accordingly a short assessment bill amounts to Rs. 77,433/- was issued to the complainant on 01-10-2009. Regulation 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 is not applicable in the instant case. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the representative of
the complainant.
4. The points that arose for consideration.
i. Whether the impugned bill is barred by limitation?
ii. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the
proceedings for the opposite parties?
5. Point Nos. i&ii. At the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 258/2012 in CC 253/2012 dated 26-04-2012 this Forum directed the opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant till disposal of the complaint. Admittedly the impugned bill was issued for the consumption of electricity from December 2004 to October 2005. It is not in dispute that average consumption of 1,549 units was assessed for the above period and the complainant had remitted the same. It is neither in dispute that the meter was replaced on 04-11-2005 and the average consumption after the replacement was 3546 units. So the opposite parties came to know about the excess consumption if at all immediately after the replacement of the meter. The opposite parties for their own reasons not substantiated remained silent subsequently and issued the present bill after a period of 4 years.
6. Regulation 56 (2) of the Electricity Act reads as follows:
“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 licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.
The present at of the opposite parties to by pass the provisions of the Kerala Electricity Act is not sustainable in Law.
7. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and order as follows:
i. The order in I.A. No.258/2012 is made absolute
ii. We set aside Ext. A2 the impugned bill for reasons stated
above
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Proceedings of the Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division, Perumbavoor
dt. 12/04/2012
A2 : Copy of bill dt. 112-04-2012
A3 : Copy of letter dated 12-04-2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
