Karnataka

Kolar

CC/50/2015

Ameer Mohammed Sadiq - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Ramesh, Execute Engineer. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Apr 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 14/10/2015

Date of Order: 26/04/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2016

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB               ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB         ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 50 OF 2015

Sri. Ameer Mohammed Sadiq,

Aged About 58 Years,

Ex. Municipal Councilor,

Swagath Lodge, B.B. Road,

Chickballapur-562 101.

 

(In-person)                                                     ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) Mr. Ramesh,

Executive Engineer (Ele.),

BESCOM, Chickballapur-562 101.

 

2) Mr. P.G. Ramesh Babu,

Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele),

BESCOM, Urban,

Chickballapur-562 101.

 

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are represented by

Sriyuth.V.Venkatachalagowda, Advocate)         …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant in-person having submitted the complaint (taken read as Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) has sought relief of issuance of directions to the Ops to rectify wrong claim of tariff and further directions for refund of the excess amount collected from 27.01.2014 together with costs and compensation.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, he is a tenant of the residential premises bearing Door No.1604 (1413/178) ward No.6, Municipal Layout at Chickballapur, with effect from 27.01.2014.  And that as he is using the electricity he is the consumer of the Ops.

 

(b)    It is also contended that, an average consumption per month was ranging to the maximum around Rs.2,000/- per month.  Further it is contended that, on 11.08.2015 he was shocked to get a bill for Rs.9,119/- for the period from 11.07.2015 to 11.08.2015.  And that he made complaint to the OP-2 on 14.08.2015 requesting for rectification of the wrong bill.

 

(c)    It is also contended that on 07.09.2015 he got a letter from OP-2 to pay Rs.100/- to get the meter inspected.  And that he paid the fees.  And that on 11.09.2015 the Junior Engineer inspected the meter and gave report citing “wrong applicability of tariff”.  And that he was told that the billing was as if for commercial status by way of LT-3 whereas he was bound to be charged by way of LT-2 for domestic purpose.  Further he has contended that, the error in tariff was since 27.01.2014 the day on which he occupied the said premises as tenant.  And that he has submitted all the monthly paid receipts of Vijaya Bank, Chickballapur to the land lord with effect from 27.01.2014.

 

(d)    Further it is contended that, he brought this error in tariff to the notice of OP-2 again on 29.03.2015 requesting to provide rectified revised bills with effect from 27.01.2014 and to adjust excess amount collected.  Further it is contended that as the OP-2 did not respond he preferred the written complaint to the OP-1 on 05.10.2015.  And that as on the date of the complaint Ops did not take any action. 

 

(e)    Further it is contended that in spite of repeated requests and representations for rectification for the last three months again he got a demand bill for Rs.13,957/- as if the electricity used was for commercial purpose by way of LT-3 instead of domestic purpose by way of LT-2.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on hand in person.

 

03.   Along with the complaint he has submitted notary attested Xerox copy of rent agreement in respect of the said premises together with schedule, affidavit of owner of the premises by name Smt. Geetha, bill dated: 11.08.2015, complaint dated: 14.08.2015 addressed to OP-2, letter dated: 07.09.2015 addressed to the said owner by OP-2, paying-in-slips issued by Vijaya Bank, the letter dated: 19.09.2015 addressed to OP-2, the letter dated: 05.10.2015 addressed to the Op-1 and the bill dated: 11.10.2015.

 

04.   The Ops through their learned counsel have put in written version resisting claim of the complainant in toto:-

 

(a)    It is specifically contended that, the electricity supply to the said premises owned by said Smt. Geetha Keshavamurthy was commenced from 28.02.1991 as AEH 1675 vide LT-2(A) claiming tariff for domestic purpose.  And that as on 20.11.2010 the said owner rented the said premises for Government Employment Exchange Office, the said premises came to be used for commercial purpose.  And that therefore tariff from LT-2(A) came to be changed to LT-3(A).  And that thereafter the said office of Government Employment Exchange came to be vacated.

 

(b)    Further it is contended that, the said owner was duty bound to intimate so as to get tariff changed from LT-3(A) to LT-2(A) i.e., from commercial purpose to domestic purpose which was not done by way of preferring application.  So contending, it is further stated that tariff so claimed is within legal means.  Thus dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

05.   On 25.01.2016 the complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence with letter dated: 11.01.2016 as issued by OP-2 and copy of Chapter-IV the general procedure for arranging power supply annexed with indemnity bond format and agreement for permanent power supply to non-commercial lighting, as well, spot inspection report dated: 20.11.2010, xerox copy of the letter to the said owner by OP.1, xerox copy of service of notice and letter dated: 20.10.2015 issued by Accountant of BESCOM, Chickballapur to the OP-2.

 

06.   On 12.04.2016 the complainant has submitted written arguments and has submitted again annexing Xerox copy of the letter dated: 20.10.2015 addressed by the Accountant, BESCOM, Chickballapur, to the OP-2.

 

07.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet dated: 06.04.2016 prayer of the learned counsel for the Ops for time to lead evidence came to be rejected as final chances were already given twice.  On 16.04.2016 it came to be noted in the order-sheet that the Ops could have no written arguments.

 

08.   As on 23.04.2016 the complainant was absent and as the learned counsel appearing for the Ops was present, heard his oral arguments only.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether OPS have committed deficiency in service?

 

2.  If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

 

3.  What order?      

 

10.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1 & 2:-          In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 3:                 As per the final order

                                for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT 1 & 2:-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

12.   From the above pleadings, documentary and oral evidence of the complainant, as well pleadings maintained by the Ops in their written version through their learned counsel would indicate certain in-disputable aspects the same are:-

 

(a)    The said premises is owned by the said Smt. Geetha Keshavamurthy and with effect from 27.01.2014 the present complainant occupied the said premises for domestic purpose and more particularly on the strength of the pleadings in Para-1 of the written version to be found on Page-2 it is clear that, the tariff claimed earlier vide LT-2(A) came to be changed to LT-3(A) as subsequent occupation was for commercial purpose.  Further the said paragraph would disclose that the said government employment exchange office stood vacated.  Therefore the occupation on the part of the complainant of the said premises with effect from 27.01.2014 was nothing but for the purpose of domestic use only.

 

(b)    Para-1 of the written version would indicate that the said owner did not give application to change tariff from LT-3(A) to LT-2(A) with regard to the said RR No. AEH-1675.  This is highly technical stand.  The complainant as a consumer of these Ops has been using the said premises for domestic purpose and hence using of electricity is for domestic purpose only.  Once so, the liability if any to pay the tariff for consumed electricity shall have to be on the basis of domestic use vide LT-2(A) and not for the commercial purpose vide LT-3(A). 

 

(c)    Admittedly tariff claimed and hence charged and hence collected from the complainant was on the basis of commercial purpose i.e., LT-3(A).  In the fitness of things such collection of tariff ought to have been on the basis of LT-2(A).  So we direct these Ops to work out tariff vide LT-2(A) for the meter bearing R.R. No. AEH-1675, with regard to the said premises.  Consequently we hold that, the excess amount paid shall be refunded to the complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 27.01.2014 and onwards periodically as collected on respective dates vide records maintained.

 

 

POINT 3:-

13.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,500/- against these OPs as hereunder:-

 

(a) The Ops shall re-workout the tariff with regard to said meter bearing R.R. No.AEH 1675 vide LT-2(A) meant for domestic purpose with effect from 27.01.2014 till date and onwards installed in the premises bearing Door No.1604 (1413/178), ward No.6, Municipal Layout, Chickballapur,.  Consequently they shall refund the excess amount claimed/charged/collected to the complainant together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 27.01.2014 and onwards periodically as collected on respective dates vide records maintained. 

 

(b)    We grant time of one month to the OPs to comply the order from the date of receipt of the same.

 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2016)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                           MEMBER                  PRESIDENT