IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 30th day of April, 2024
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 368/2023 (Filed on 02-11-2023)
Petitioner : Reena Chandy,
W/o. Samuel K. Chandy,
Mattihara House,
Backer Jn. Kottayam
Pin – 686001.
(Adv. Avaneesh V.N.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram.
(2) Assistant Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Electrical Section,
Kottayam Central,
Kottayam – 686001.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Deepthy S. Nath)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The complainant is a house wife and she is having a multi storied building namely, Mateethra Building, at Backer Junction, Kottayam. She rented out the said
building to different persons and from the income derived from the said rental transactions, she is deriving her livelihood. There are several electricity connections in the building and to the second floor, she is having connection with consumer no 1146348004458 of Electrical Section, Kottayam Central. Thus the complainant is the consumer of the respondent. The electricity charge is being paid regularly, either by the lessee or by the complainant.
During 2009 period, the second floor was leased out to. CADD CENTRE. In order to identify the connections in the said building, the 2nd respondent added the name of the concern to the name of the complainant. Thus at that time bill was issued in the title, Reena Chandy, CADD CENTRE. At that time, the Electricity charges was paid regularly, without any fault.
On 22/8/2023 he received a notice dated 10/8/2023 citing that an amount of Rs. 1,99,611/-, is in arrears during the period from 17/8/2009 to 17/8/2009 as on 1/8/23, from the office of the 2nd respondent. It is specifically stated that the amount can be paid as per OTS Scheme up to 30.12.23. Actually the complainant never received any information about the arrears as stated in the said notice. Nowhere it is stated in the notice that how the respondent calculated that much of amount as arrears and on what basis they arrived to that amount. No calculation statement is attached or stated in the notice. It was not assessed by the assessing officer as stated in the laws relating to Electricity in India. The respondents have no authority to issue such a notice to the complainant. More over the arrear period is shown as 17/8/2009 to 17/8/2009.
After receiving the said notice, the son of the complainant approached the Senior Superintendant, to know more about the notice. But he told that if the said amount is not remitted, coercive steps will be initiated for recovering the said amount. The issuance of the notice by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant suffered much loss and mental agony due to the act of the opposite parties and is also entitled to get compensation for it. Hence this petition is filed by the complainant praying for an order to set aside the notice dt.10.8.23 and all connected proceedings with respect to notice, having No.OTS 2023/019075 and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation against deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, to the complainant and to pay Rs. 10000/- as the cost of this litigation .
Upon notice from this Commission, opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed joint version contenting as follows.
The petition is not maintainable either on facts or law. The consumer number 4458 is a three phase connection given in the name of Smt. Reena Chandi, Matteethra House, Baker Junction, Kottayam under LT VIIA tariff under Electrical Section, Kottayam Central. The complainant’s premises was inspected by the KSEB officials and detected the total connected load and using the total connected load of the premises is 33490 watts. The registered connected load of the consumer at that date was 13400 Watts. Therefore the consumer was connecting an unauthorised load of 20090 watts. (21 KW) and was using for her commercial building in the aforesaid (Consumer No.4458) electric connection. An assessment was made as per the Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 to the tune of Rs.56,875/- was issued on 17/08/2009 towards the penal charges of the unauthorised use of electricity as stipulated in section 126(5) of Electricity Act 2003.
The consumer has not remitted the above additional bill till date. They were regularly remitting her monthly current charges. The alleged notice mentioned in the complaint was issued to the complainant for notifying her about the one time settlement scheme which is ongoing in KSEB Ltd. The notice is meant for providing information to the complainant regarding the various options available to her mainly regarding the reduction in surcharges for the electricity charge arrears. However the complainant is liable to pay the arrear current charges to the tune of Rs.56,875/- as aforesaid along with the surcharges there to till the date of payment by her. The service connection effected to the above consumer number is non domestic connection and given for running a CADD centre. Hence the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
This additional bill was not paid by the complainant and as such this amount has been laying against the consumer as arrear of current charge along with the upto date surcharges. The arrear amount shown in the notice is the amount due from the complainant on account of unauthorised use of electricity committed by the complainant and the same is prepared as per the section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 of Electrical Supply Code and she is liable to remit the same along with the
upto date surcharges. Here the complainant has violated the above clause in the supply code 2014. The act of the complainant is also violation of the service connection agreement entered between the consumer and the KSEB Ltd. Therefore the complainant is liable to remit the additional bill issued to the complainant for the unauthorised use of electricity committed by her. At the same time it is a fact that the complainant has an outstanding arrear of Rs.56,875/- towards the Principal
current charges and upto date surcharges at the rate of 18% from 17.08.2009. If she does not opt the facility under OTS scheme she has to remit the aforesaid full amount. The arrear amount is assessed and calculated as per the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and hence purely legal and hence binding of the complainant. The complainant is bound to pay the KSEB Ltd the aforesaid amount along with surcharges there to. The opposite parties have acted purely according to law as said above and the act of the opposite parties does not amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has no right for seeking compensation against the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the opposite parties.
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit A1 from her side. Anoop Raj V.P. who is the Assistant Engineer of the second opposite party filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked exhibit B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite parties.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant had succeeded to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs and cost?
Point No.1 and 2
There is no dispute on the fact that the complainant availed a three face service connection from the second opposite party vide consumer number 4458. The specific case of the complainant is that on 22-8- 2023 she received exhibit A1 notice dated 10-8-2023 stating that an amount of Rs.1,99,611/- is in arrears during the period from 17-8-2009 to 17-8-2009 as on 1-8- 2023 from the office of the second opposite party. It is further alleged by the complainant that when she enquired about the same, the Senior Superintendent of the second opposite party told that if the said amount is not remitted coercive steps will be initiated for recovering the said amount.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties contending that an inspection was conducted at the premises of the complainant and an additional load
of 21KW was detected and an additional bill of Rs.56,875/- was issued to the consumer on 17-8- 2009. On going through the exhibit A1we can see that the opposite party called upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,99,611/- which is the arrears towards the energy charges from 17-8-2009 to 17-8-2009. It is further stated in Exhibit A1 that the principal arrear amount was Rs.56,875/- and the interest @18% till 1-8- 2023 was Rs.1,42,736/-.
Though the opposite party contended that they had conducted an inspection at the premises of the complainant and an additional load of 21KW vas detected they did not adduce any evidence to prove the same. According to the opposite parties an assessment was made as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 to the tune of Rs.56,875/- was issued on 17-8-2009 towards the penal charges of the unauthorised use of electricity as stipulated in sections 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003. However the opposite parties did not produce any mahesar prepared in accordance with the regulation 151 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Codes or any other document to prove that the complainant had committed violation of the terms and conditions of the usage of electricity to attract and to invoke the provisions of the section 126 of the electricity at 2003. Therefore we are of the opinion that this complaint is maintainable before this Commission.
The opposite parties did not produce any evidence to prove the duration of the unauthorised use as alleged by them. Moreover it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties in the version as well as in the affidavit admitted that the complainant was regularly remitting her monthly energy charges. As per regulation 136(3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code the licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of two years from the date when such amount became first due unless such amount has been shown continuously as recoverable arear of charges for electricity supplied. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has no case that they have shown Rs.56,875/- as arrear of electricity charges in the regular monthly bill for the energy of the complainant .
On going through the Exhibit B-2 which is the copy of the consumer profile of the complainant from 1-1 - 2016 to 1-12 -to 2023 we can see that the opposite parties have not demanded Rs. 56,875/- as outstanding bill amount. Neither in the version nor in the proof affidavit the opposite parties explained why they did not initiate any steps to recover the alleged penal charges from the complainant for a long period of more than 14 years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the issuance of Exhibit A1 to the complainant is not in accordance with the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the Regulations of Kerala Electricity Supply Code.
As per section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 any fault imperfection shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by under any law for the time being in force in relation to any service amounts to deficiency. Therefore we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by issuing exhibit A1 to the complainant.
According to the opposite parties exhibit A1was issued to the complainant to notify her regarding the one time settlement scheme which is going on in KSEB and to provide information to the complaint regarding the various options available to her mainly regarding the reduction in surcharges for the electricity charge arrears.
As we already found that the opposite parties are not entitled to issue exhibit A1 notice to the complainant. Issuing a notice calling upon the complainant to participate in one time settlement scheme for an amount which is not entitled to recover by the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice. No doubt the complainant had put too much mental agony due to the deficient act of the opposite parties for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate. We are of the considered opinion that for each and every act of dereliction of duty from the part of its employees, if K.S.E.B. has to bear the burden of compensation, it is not a good practice. As K.S.E.B. is a public sector institution, we are not inclined to loose its fund by going after litigations. On the same time the consumer need not suffer for the deficient service of the staff of K.S.E.B. In these circumstances we allow this complaint and pass the following order:
- We hereby set aside set the notice dt.10/8/23 and all connected proceedings with respect to notice, having No.OTS 2023/019075.
- We hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The compensation amount shall be recovered from the concerned official who committed the dereliction of duty.
- We here by direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand five hundred only) to the complainant as the cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order failing in which the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of April, 2024.
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of notice dtd.10-08-2023 by opposite party to complainant
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of detailed view of bill by 2nd opposite party (Subject to objection)
B2 – Copy of consumer profile of 1146348004458 (Subject to objection)
B3 – Copy of one time settlement (OTS 2023/019075)
By Order
SD/-
Assistant Registrar
