BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/05/2011

Date of Order : 29/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 234/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The facts leading to the complaint are as follows :

The complainant is the beneficiary of the electric connection availed by the owner of the building where the complainant conducts a bakery to find his livelihood by self-employment. The said connection falls under LT VII A tariff. It is significant to note that the unauthorized connected load has been regularized in the year 2007. A penal bill to the tune of Rs. 33,094/- was issued to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party on the basis of audit report of R.A.O., Perumbavoor. What is contended by the complainant is that he is not liable to pay the bill amount, since it is barred by limitation as set out in Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. Hence it is urged that the Forum may intervene to set aside the impugned bill.

2. The contentions raised in the complaint have been resisted by the opposite parties in their version where several arguments have been brilliantly raised to sustain the legality of the levy. They seek to base their demand on clause 50 (5) and 50 (6) of the K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 authorizing the Board to penalize the connection of unauthorised additional load by any consumer. It is also averred that the consumer has not regularized the unauthorised load so far and the unauthorised load still remains 2 KW. The bill issued is in respect of short assessment of consumption and hence the Regulation 18 (8) is not applicable in the present case. The complainant must have first of all exhausted his administrative remedies under Section 127 of the electricity Act 2003. Hence what they urge on the Forum is to dismiss the complaint with cost.

3. The complainant produced one document which is marked as Ext. A1. No other evidence for him. The opposite parties produced two documents which were marked as Exts. B1 and B2. No other evidence for them also. Counsel on both sides were heard.

4. The following points deserve our attention :

1. Whether the impugned bill is justified in law?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i) and ii) :- Ext. A1 penal bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant based on Exts. B1 and B2 reports is the bone of contention. The contention of the complainant is that the unauthorised connected load was regularized in the year 2007. But the contention is empty in as much as no supporting material has been produced by the time to prove the same. The opposite parties have denied the contention of the complainant stating that the excess load had been regularized. In that view of the matter, the said contention of the complainant can hardly be sustained.

6. The opposite parties seeks to sustain the levy on the ground that it is only a short assessment bill and hence it is not vitiated by limitation prescribed under Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 which addresses arrear bills. Moreover, they find shelter under Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code which authorizes the Board as licensee to levy the undercharged consumption by issuing bill. We are unable to accept the contentions because Regulation 18 (8) covers recovery of any amount beyond the period of two years from the due date, whatever be the category, under which the levy falls. That would be a harmonious method of interpreting the aforesaid Regulations.

7. Lastly, they would contend that the remedies provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 have not been exhausted before approaching the Forum. We do not find any merit in the contention in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which provides that the Act is envisaged as an additional source of remedy to the consumer. In short, we do not find any reason to sustain the levy of the amount specified in the impugned Ext. A1 bill. However, the opposite parties are at liberty to regularize the unauthorised connected load and the complainant will comply with the formalities for the same.

8. In the result, the complaint is allowed and Ext. A1 bill is set aside. Nevertheless, the opposite parties shall regularize the unauthorised connected load as per norms unless he complainant produces documents to show that regularization was effected earlier.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2011.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========

Date of Despatch of this Order ::

By Post ::

By Hand ::