BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 25/04/2011
Date of Order : 29/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 209/2011
Between
Beji Peter, | :: | Complainant |
Varikalayil (H), Proprietor, Lamiya Beauty Palace, P.O. Junction, Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Section No. 1, Muvattupuzha. |
| (By parties-in-person) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The complainant unfolds the following facts in relation to the complaint :
The complainant conducts Gents Beauty Parlour for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment for which he has availed electricity connection to his shop under LT VII A category. Unuthorised load to the said shop was regularized by paying penal charges. Again a penal bill dated 08-07-2011 was issued to him to the tune of a whopping sum of Rs. 91,622/-. Consequent on inspection report prepared by Regional Audit Officer, Perumbavoor on the ground of short assessment of PRC + PCC + duty for the period from 6/2007 to 4/2009. The complainant assails the legality of the penal bill and urges us to set it aside.
2. In the version submitted by the opposite parties, it is contended that they have power and authority to issue the penal bill and it is not barred by limitation of time as the amount is charged towards short assessment and not arrear of charge. Moreover, the Board has issued an order authorizing itself to re-assess unauthorised additional load at two times. Lastly, they allege that the complainant has not exhausted the administrative remedies provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003.
3. The parties have produced documents only in furtherance of their pleadings. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked for the complainant while Exts. B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite parties. The counsel appearing for the parties were then heard.
4. The short points for our consideration are :-
Whether the impugned bill can be sustained in law?
What are the reliefs if point (i) is decided in favour of the complainant?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A2 bill is impugned in this complaint contending that it is illegal, firstly because the basis for the bill being unauthorised excess load had been regularized in the year 2009 after paying normal charges for the purpose. Ext. A1 vouches for the same. The second contention is that the levy of penal charges at the belated stage after the expiry of two years which is prescribed as the time limit for recovery of arrears is bad in law. He is also of the view that before approaching the Forum, the complainant ought to have filed appeal before appellate authority in the Electricity Board to re-open the merits of the decision in Appeal.
6. The stand taken by the complainant is that since the over load was regularized, the 1st opposite party Electricity Board is estopped from re-opening the matter. The order cited by the opposite parties is only direction issued by the Board to re-open the assessment and recover the balance. We do not think the contention can be sustained and it cannot have the force of law. Therefore, our conclusion is that the opposite parties are estopped from collecting penal charges once again over the matter which has been the subject of assessment once.
7. The second contention pertains to Law of limitation. Clause 18 (8) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code prohibits recovery of arrears after the elapse of two years from the date on which it had become due. What the opposite parties urges on us is that the said provision is not applicable in the instant case, because whereas the provision prohibits recovery of arrears, the impugned bill pertains to charges on short assessment. Our response to such over stretched argument is that, whether it be recovery of short assessment charges or recovery, under any other pretext recovery of any sun due from the consumer after a period of two years is barred by limitation especially in view of Section 56 of the Electricity Act 2003.
8. Also, it is contended that the administrative remedies have not be exhausted before approaching the Consumer Forum. We think the preamble as well as Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act sufficiently addresses such challenges because Consumer Protection is envisaged as a benevolent legislation for the better protection interests of the consumer. The law on the topic has been recently enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.N. Shrikande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandez (2011 CXTJ (1) (SC) (CP), in the following words :
“We may hasten to add that the power conferred upon the Consumer Forums under Section 12 (3), 18 or 22 to reject the complaint at stage of admission should not be exercised lightly because the Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and the speedy and inexpensive redressal mechanism enshrined therein is in addition to other remedies which may be available to the consumer under the ordinary law. Therefore admission of the complaint filed under the Act should be the rule and dismissal thereof should be an exception.”
In that view of the matter, the last contention also is not of much merit in it.
9. For the reasons stated above, we allow the complaint and Ext. A1 bill is set aside.
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 29th day of August 2011.
