BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 11/10/2011
Date of Order : 31/05/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 547/2011
Between
Dr. Meera Sahib, | :: | Complainant |
Kotteparambil (H), Pezhakkappilly. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 674. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, K.S.E. Board, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Vydhuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E. Board, Electrical Section, Velloorkunnam, Market. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 673. |
| (Parties-in-person) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The complainant has been induced by the following facts to come before this Forum :
The complainant is a consumer of electricity supplied by the opposite parties to his premises under LT VII A category connection. When he approached the 2nd opposite party with an application for an additional 3 phase connection, a penal bill to the tune of Rs. 19,458/- served upon him, the payment of which was made a condition precedent from the applied connection. The stand taken by the complainant is that he is not liable to pay the bill amount.
2. The opposite parties have filed version where several contentions have been raised to justify the levy. They contend firstly that the complainant should have initially exhausted the departmental remedies provided in Sections 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. They contend that no Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such disputes, because the said law provides effective and efficacious alternative internal machinery for the resolution of such disputes. The short assessment bill for Rs. 19,458/- was issued after complying with the procedures set out in the Electricity Act 2003. The bill was issued to penalize the act of unauthorised connection of load to the tune of 2 KW. The act of enhancing the load without authority will undermine the public interest in as much as the electric supply system might some time be thrown out of gear by such acts. Their version has been concluded with the plea of dismissal of the complaint which has been filed on an experimental basis.
3. The complainant has no oral evidence. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked for him. The opposite parties have no oral evidence. They have produced two documents which were marked as Exts. B1 and B2. Both sides were heard.
4. The following points emerge for settlement :
Whether the impugned bill is justified in law?
What are the reliefs, if answer to th first point is in the negative?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- There is no dispute over the fact of exceeding the authorised load. The only contentions raised by the complainant are that the levy is barred by limitation and secondly the consumed power has already been charged by the opposite parties. Since the consumption of electricity had been recorded correctly by the electric meter. On the other hand, the opposite parties take shelter under Section 126 and 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 to challenge the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain such complaints. What they contend is that they have their own machinery to settle such disputes very effectively. Also, it is their say that Electricity Act 2003 has virtually ousted the jurisdiction of Civil Courts including that of the consumer agencies. We are afraid that we cannot countenance such a contention in view o the eloquence of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act which has emphatically asserted the supremacy of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act even where alternative remedies are provided under other statutes.
6. After having dispelled the apprehension regarding the jurisdiction of the Forum, we have to turn to the merits of the contentions raised pertaining to the real issue at hand. As stated earlier, the complainant is mainly harping on he law of limitation and double payment. Regarding the question of limitation, it has to be borne in mind that the controversy has been set at rest by the recent decisions of various high Courts stating that the time starts to run only from the date of issuance of bill and not from the date of consumption. Regarding the second contention of the complaint, the opposite parties have taken up the view that this is a measure to curb such unhealthy tendency to use power without authority which would be detrimental to public interest in many respects. They have highlighted the provisions under Sections 126,135 and 136 of the Electricity Act 2003 in this regard. We think there is force in such argument and it has to be countenanced.
7. On an overall view of the matter, we do not think that there is anything reprehensible on the part of the opposite parties in demanding the amount in Ext. A2 bill. This is particularly so, because they have complied with the formalities as evidenced by Exts. B1 and B2.
8. Considering the merits of the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel who appeared on both sides, we are of the view that the opposite parties are perfectly within the safe side of law in the impugned penal bill. In that view of the matter, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2012
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 :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 08-02-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 22-05-2010 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the inspection report dt. 29--09-2006 |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of audit note page 4 |
=========
