Anu mohan k b filed a consumer case on 22 Feb 2023 against KSEBE Electrical section in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/154/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Mar 2023.
DATE OF FILING : 22.8.2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2023
Present :
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER
SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER
CC NO.154/2019
Between
Complainant : Anu Mohan K.B.,
Kadambukanathil House,
Kunchithanni P.O.,
Idukki – 685 565.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section, Chithirapuram,
Pin – 685 565.
2.The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Division, Adimali,
Adimali P.O.
3. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(All by Adv:Lissy M.M.)
O R D E R
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 (the Act, for short). Complaint averments are briefly discussed here under :
Complainant is residing at Kunchithanni in Idukki District. He is running a bakery shop in the front portion of his house situated therein. Complainant had applied for electricity connection for his shop under commercial tariff and for residential portion of the building under domestic tariff, separately. 1st opposite party is Assistant Engineer of KSEB Electrical Section at Chithirapuram. 2nd opposite party is Executive Engineer of KSEB having its office at Adimali and 3rd opposite party is the
Secretary of KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan at Thiruvananthapuram. Upon his application, complainant was granted electricity connection as consumer No.18239 for his shop and (cont....2)
consumer No.18129 for the portion of the building used for his residence. Thereafter all the bills generated by opposite party in connection with the said consumer numbers were being promptly paid by complainant. While so, on 24.5.2019, complainant was served a provisional assessment order in connection with consumer No.18239 of his shop. Assessment was for the reason that his bakery shop was given domestic connection, instead of commercial. Complainant had preferred an appeal before Assistant Executive Engineer, against provisional assessment. His appeal was allowed and provisional assessment order was set aside. However, on 24.7.2019, 1st opposite party had, for the same reasons, issued a notice seeking payment of Rs.32,279/- for the period from 2011 – 2019, upon which earlier provisional order was issued. It was mentioned in the notice that if the amount mentioned therein is not paid within a month, power supply to the shop will be disconnected. Complainant submits that freezer and refrigerator found in the shop were in use since an year before inspection. At the time of applying for electricity connection for his shop, complainant had very clearly given the purpose as commercial and had applied for connection under commercial tariff. If at all any wrong entries were made by opposite parties, or if they had wrongly included him in domestic tariff, complainant is not liable to pay any additional charges as claimed in the notice dated 24.7.2019. Such charges should be realised from the persons concerned, who had wrongly included the complainant under domestic tariff. Complainant was president of Merchant Association at Kunchithanni. He had raised a complaint with regard to repeated failure of power supply and loss thereby occasioned to the merchants in the locality, before opposite parties. Complainant suspects that inspection of his shop on the very next day of lodging protest was a retaliatory move on the part of opposite parties. Attempt of opposite party is to pressurise the complainant into paying additional bill, which he is not liable to pay. This amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant seeks a direction against opposite parties for setting aside assessment bill dated 24.7.2019 for Rs.32,379/-. He also seeks damage for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, to the tune of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Opposite parties 1 to 3 have appeared on notice. 1st opposite party, Assistant Engineer has filed a written version on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 as well. Contentions taken by opposite parties 1 to 3 in the written version are briefly narrated hereunder :
According to opposite parties, complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 126 of Electricity Act of 2003. Besides, Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the matter of Utter PradeshPower Corporation and others Vs. Anis Ahamed [SLP (C) 35906 of 2011] held that no complaints can be entertained by Consumer Forums against assessment by Board. Opposite parties have only acted in accordance with law. Complainant was a consumer under Chithirapuram Electrical Section. His Consumer number is 18239/Chithiraparum. On 22.5.2019, Chithirapuram Section Squad Officer has (cont....3)
inspected the premises of consumer No.18239/Chithirapuram. Upon inspection, it was found that the consumer was using more electricity for other purposes than thepermittedload under tariff, in which he was included. Hence he was penalised under Section 126 of Electricity Act for unauthorised use of electricity and directed to pay penal charges of Rs.21,996/-, as per provisional order No.DB36/2019-20/47/AEE/ESD/CPM on 29.5.2019. Complainant has lodged a protest against the assessment before assessing officer. Complaint of the same was considered by assessing officer and as per order No.DB33/2019-20/84/AEE/ESD/CPM dated 18.6.2019, provisional assessment order mentioned earlier was set aside. However, it was observed in the assessment order that the authorities are at liberty to realise the actual amount due from the consumer. As per Regulation 97 of Supply Code 2014, Board has the power to realise actual consumption charges from the consumer in connection with wrong assessment done earlier. Accordingly, upon finding that the complainant was wrongly included under the tariff for domestic connection, instead of commercial tariff, in connection with his shop, he was assessed for actual consumption under commercial tariff from the date when connection was granted, till the date of assessment. These being the facts, this Forum cannot entertain the present complaint. Same is to be dismissed.
3. After the filing of written version, case was posted for steps and then for evidence. No oral evidence was tendered by complainant. 5 documents produced by him were marked as Exts.P1 to P5. Ext.P1 is a copy of site mahazar prepared for the inspection dated 22.5.2019. Ext.R2 is the original mahazar. Ext.P2 is provisional assessment order dated 24.5.2019. Ext.P3 is the copy of appeal preferred by complainant against provisional assessment order. Ext.P4 is final assessment order dated 18.6.2019. Ext.P5 is short assessment bill as per regulation 97 of Supply Code 2014. Same document has been marked as Ext.R1 on the side of opposite parties.
On the side of opposite parties, opposite party No.1 was examined as RW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 admitted. Ext.R3 is the consumer profile of complainant as per consumer No.18239. We notice that an application was filed by complainant to summon his original application for electricity connection for his bakery shop. 1st opposite party has filed an affidavit stating that due to lack of space those applications including that of complainant were not properly stored and hence were lost. However, consumer profile created on the basis of application preferred by complainant and others in e-file maintained in the system operated by 1st opposite party was available. Ext.R3 is this profile.
After examination of RW1, evidence was closed and both sides were heard. Now the point which arise for consideration are :
1) Whether complaint is maintainable ?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service ?
(cont....4)
- 4 -
3) Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint ?
4) Final order and costs ?
4. Point Nos.1 to 3 are considered together :
According to complainant, he was wrongly included in the tariff for domestic connection, whereas he had applied for connection under commercial tariff. Since the mistake was on the part of Board employees, he is not liable for any assessment which had escaped due to their fault. These contentions cannot be sustained in view of Regulations 97 of Supply Code of 2014.As there was no unauthorised use, Ext.P2 provisional assessment order was rightly set aside as per Ext.P4 final assessment carried out by assessing officer. Since complainant was wrongly included under the tariff for domestic connection on the date of connection itself, it is evident that he was charged less than the actual tariff which he was bound to pay as consumer under commercial tariff. Therefore, as per Ext.P5 final assessment order, he was assessed for the difference from 2011 till 24.5.2019. Regulation 97 of Supply Code 2014, provides for assessment of actual consumption charges in case of any incorrect assessment by Board. This aspect has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Prem Cottex (M/s) Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and others [2021 (11) SCALE 743]short assessment cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable before this Forum, nor there is any deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly.
5. Point No.4 :
In the result, complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs. Extra copies produced by parties shall be taken back by them without delay.
Pronounced by this Commission on this the 22nd day of February, 2023
Sd/-
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
Forwarded by Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.