BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 25/04/2011

Date of Order : 29/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C. C. No. 212/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The following are the facts pertaining to the complaint :

The complainant is a self-employed person finding his livelihood by conducting a medical shop. To the shop, he has availed electric connection under LT VII A tariff. This complaint is filed challenging the demand made by the opposite parties for payment of Rs. 13,713/- on the basis of findings in the report prepared by Regional Audit Officer, Perumbavoor. The complainant mainly contends that he is not liable to remit the said amount since the demand is barred by limitation as prescribed under Regulation 18(8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. Hence, it is urged upon the Forum to set aside the impugned bill.

2. It is admitted in the version filed on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under LT VII A tariff. It is also admitted that regularization of unauthorized connected load was effected on 07-10-2009. But they contended that penalty for unauthorised load was levied only from 4/2009. The impugned penal bill was issued to levy penalty for UAL till 4/2009. It is true that Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 prevents realisation of arrears after two years from the date when such arrear became due for recovery. The present bill is not an arrear bill, but short assessment bill. Hence the said Regulation is not applicable in this case. In view of Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Regulation, which provides for the issuance of bill for recovery of charges that were under charged, the opposite party is entitled for the recovery of the disputed amount. Moreover, the complainant has not exhausted the internal administrative remedies provided in Section 127 of Electricity Act 2003. For the reasons stated above, the opposite parties urge on the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3. No oral evidence for the complainant. Ext. A1 was marked for him. The opposite parties too had no oral evidence. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. The learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard.

4. The following points are at issue :

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the impugned bill amount?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complaint is filed to get Ext. A1 bill set aside. The bill has been issued by the opposite parties to levy an amount of Rs. 13,713/- (Rupees thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirteen only) on the basis of direction made in the audit report prepared by the R.A.O, Perumbavoor. The averment of the opposite parties is that they are justified in levying the amount because they are authorized to do so by issuing bill for recovery of under charged consumptions under Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code. They also contend tat the amount sought to be recovered in this case is not an arrear amount as envisaged in Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, but the consumption that has been short assessed. The recovery of the bill amount is resisted by Mr. Tom Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant mainly on the ground that the levy is barred by limitation period of two years prescribed under Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005. We think there is substance in the contention. We do not think that the said Regulation would permit such a classification of levy into arrear bill and short assessment bill. Whatever be the category, levy of any charges after the expiry of two years from the date on which that amount ought to have been levied is barred by limitation. By applying this yard stick we think the impugned Ext. A1 bill issued by the opposite parties is not justified in law.

6. The second contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complainant should have first of all, exhausted the internal remedies provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act and then only he ought to have approached the Forum. We think this contention also is devoid of merit in the face of preamble and Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which is enacted as a piece of benevolent legislation for the better protection of the interests of the consumer. Section 3 significantly provides that the provisions of the Act are not in derogation, but in addition to remedies provided under other statues. That being the case, it is obvious that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act will not run counter to the provision of Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003. In that view of the matter, the contention based on Section 127 of the Electricity Act being a faint attempt should fail.

7. The only relief sought in the complaint is to set aside Ext. A1 bill. We order accordingly.

8. To conclude, we allow the complaint and accordingly 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 29^th day of September 2011.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

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 ::