BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 29/09/2011
Date of Order : 31/07/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 520/2011
Between
E.J. Joy, Proprietor, | :: | Complainant |
A.D. One duty Paid Shop, Kothamangalam – 686 691.
|
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite Parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Electrical Section – 1, Kothamangalam – 686 691. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. P.B. Asokan & George C. Varghese Advocates, XL/4664, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 301.) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant is conducting a duty paid shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The electricity consumer No. is 10173 under LT VIII A Category. The connection is in the name of the previous owner. The complainant now submitted an application for change of ownership. The permitted connected load is 5840 W. But the present connected load is only 3375 watts. While so, the 2nd opposite party had issued a short assessment bill for Rs. 31,800/- stating it as fixed charges due to effecting supply on single phase for 106 months for 6 KW. The complainant is not liable to pay the said bill amount, since the existing connected load is only 3375 watts. Moreover, the connection was given by the 2nd opposite party after conducting necessary inspections. If three phase connection were required, the opposite party should have insisted on the same at that time. The present demand is barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Supply Code. No site inspection was done. The act of the opposite party to demand huge amount on unfounded and arbitrary ground amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant preferred this complaint to get the impugned bill set aside.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :
An electric connection was given in favour of Shri. Ekkoran Krishnan, Elambrathu House, Kothamangalam under LT VII A tariff on 01-05-1998 with connected load of 6 KW. The maximum connected load that can be allowed in 240 V supply (Single Phase) in 5 KW and for connected load above 5 KW there should be 3 phase connection. This mistake was detected by the Principal Accountant General and bill for Rs. 31,600/- was issued. The complainant is liable to pay the amount.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came for consideration are as follows :-
Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
And if so, whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?
5. Point No. i. :- Admittedly, the Account General's inspection was on 27-04-2004. However, the opposite parties issued Ext. A1 the disputed bill only on 26-09-2011. That is Ext. A1 was issued after a period of 7 years. The demand as per Ext. A1 bill is clearly barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. So being found, no further deliberation is warranted. Therefore, we set aside Ext. A1 bill. If it is further seen that any change in phase of the connection of the complainant, the parties are free to resort to legal remedies.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
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. 26-09-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 08-06-2011 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the application form |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
