IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 31st day of August, 2015
Filed on 06.05.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Xavier Antony (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.140/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Divine Worship Centre 1. The Secretary, KSEB.Thejus, Hatchery Junction Pattom, ThiruvananthapuramChengannur, Represented by
its Secretary, Kora Abraham 2. The Assistant Exe. Engineer
Mathilunkal, Kuttappuzha P.O. KSEB., Electrical Section
Thiruvalla – 688 103 Chengannur
(By Adv. V.N. Kiranlal)
3. The Deputy Chief Engineer
KSEB., Alappuzha
(By Adv. Jayan. C. Das – for
Opposite parties)
ORDER
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is a place of worship functioning in the name and style of Devine Worship Centre represented by its Secretary. The complainant has been functioning by using the electrical energy supplied by the opposite parties. The tariff connection of building was LT/6A. Usually, the prayer meeting was being conducted in a temporary hall. The hall is not electrified. Hence generator was used for the purpose of producing energy. Since the generator was damaged, the complainant was forced to draw electricity from the aforesaid connection of the prayer hall. On 30th November, 2010 when the energy was so drawn, the opposite parties visited the complainant’s premises and alleged that complainant had been using electrical energy unauthorizedly from the aforesaid connection for several days. Hence they issued a bill dated 11.1.2011 calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,62,023/- towards electrical charge and threatened the complainant of recovery proceedings or disconnection in the event of non remittance of the aforesaid amount. Complainant approached the opposite party and lodged a complaint regarding the manner of issuing bill demanding illegal and exorbitant amount from the complainant. By remitting the ½ of the amount as advised by the opposite parties complainant challenged the genuineness of the bill. According to the complainant, the opposite party have no authority to issue such illegitimate bill. Hence the complaint is filed.
2. Opposite parties filed version challenging the maintainability of the complaint. According to the opposite party complainant approached the Forum challenging the provisional assessment made consequent on the detection of unauthorized use of electricity. According to the opposite party as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act, the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
3. The point for consideration is whether the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
4.According to the opposite party, they have made the assessment u/s 126(1) of the Electricity Act, on the basis of an inspection conducted on the premises of the complainant.Thereafter the complainant appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed objection u/s 126(3) of the Act.But the Assessing Officer passed the final order dated 25.2.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,30,123/- u/s 126(3) of the Act.Against that order complainant had preferred an appeal before the Deputy Engineer, Electrical Circle, Pathanamthitta.After the hearing the appeal was dismissed.Hence according to the opposite party, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.In the version filed by the opposite parties, it is admitted that as per the inspection made on 30.11.2010 a provisional bill was issued to the complainant u/s 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 towards temporary extension to one kilo watt for one year and unauthorized additional load of 7 kilo watts. 5.In a decision reported in III(2013 CPJ I (SC) UP Power Corporation Ltd. and Another Vs. Ahmed Hon’ble Apex Court held that consumer complaint challenging electricity bills pertain to the unauthorized use and also averments made under Section 126 of Electricity Act are not maintainable.In the instant case complainant has challenged the bill which was issued by the opposite party on the basis of assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act.
Relaying the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, we are of opinion that consumer complaint is not maintainable and hence it is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2015. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the demand and disconnection notice dtd. 27.11.2013
Ext.A2 - Copy of the demand and disconnection notice dtd. 16.01.2014
Ext.A3 - Copy of the demand and disconnection notice dtd. 14.03.2014
Ext.A4 - Copy of the letter dated 31.3.2014
Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter dated 17.5.2014
Ext.A6 - Copy of the letter dated 5.5.2014
Ext.A7 - Post Cover
Ext.A8 - Copy of the letter dated 31.1.2014
Ext.A9 - Copy of the letter dated 2/2014
Ext.A10 - Letter dated 15.3.2014
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Statement of consumer details and present status
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
