IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 51/2013 (Filed on 19.04.2013)
Between:
Manoharan Nair, 62 years,
Punnackattumannil Veedu,
Kaippattoor Muri,
Kaippattoor P.O.,
Vallikkodu Village – 689 648.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) …. Complainant
And:
1. Secretary,
KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Asst. Engineer,
KSEB,
Kaippattoor. P.O. – 689 645.
3. Deputy Chief Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Circle,
Pathanamthitta. P.O.,
Pin – 689 645. …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Complainant is a consumer of the 2nd opposite party vide Con.No.4294 being the tenant of the original consumer. Complainant is not a defaulter of any of the bills issued by the opposite parties. While so, the 2nd opposite party issued a bill on 19.03.2013 demanding an amount of Rs. 15,497/-. On getting the bill the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party directly and enquired about the bill. But they have not given any reply. Thereafter on 02.04.2013 the complainant submitted a complaint before the 3rd opposite party regarding the bill. So far no reply has been received from the 3rd opposite party for the said complaint. The bill in question is issued by the opposite party is against existing rules and they are not entitled to issue such a bill and the complainant is not liable to pay the said bill. The above said act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice which caused mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for setting aside the impugned bill for Rs. 15,497/- dated 19.03.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of this proceedings.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version with the following main contentions: According to the opposite parties, originally the connection was given under LT IV tariff. Later, on the basis of the application of the consumer the said connection was changed to LT VIA tariff. Thereafter, as per the orders of KSEB the said connection was converted to LT VIIA tariff as activity going on in the premises where the electric connection was given is an unaided educational institution. Though the said conversion was made the rate applicable to LT VIIA tariff was not collected from the complainant from 3108. This has been found in the audit conducted by the Dist. Regional Audit Officer of KSEB during 2013 February. Based on the audit report the short payment of the complainant was calculated for a period from 3/08 to 3/13 as Rs. 15,497/- and the bill in question was issued accordingly. The said bill is legal and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. Thus, there is no unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties. With the above contentions opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1. After Closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that the bill dated 19.03.2013 for Rs.15,497/- issued by the opposite parties is illegal and the complainant is not liable to pay the said bill amount and the opposite party is not entitled to issue or demand a bill like this and the said act of the opposite parties is an unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant argued for allowing the complaint.
7. In order to prove the allegation of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the impugned bill issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 is a notice dated 19.03.2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant demanding the payment. Ext.A3 is the calculation statement issued from the office of the 2nd opposite party in respect of Ext.A1 bill. Ext.A4 is the copy of the rent agreement dated 11.01.2006 executed by one P. Manoharan Nair in favour of the complainant.
8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant was paying electricity charges under LT VIA tariff whereas the complainant’s electric connection was transferred to LT VIIA tariff w.e.f. 3/08. As per the electricity rules, the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount as the bill is calculated for the short payments made by the complainant due to the mis-classification of the tariff. Thus they argued that they have not committed any unfair trade practice and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, Asst. Exe. Engineer of KSEB, Sub Division, Adoor adduced oral evidence as DW1 and produced one document which is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is an order dated 28.05.2009 issued by the Secretary, KSEB, showing the appropriate tariff applicable to self financing institutions as LT VIIA tariff w.e.f 01.12.2007.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the appropriate tariff applicable to the complainant is LT VIIA and the impugned bill was issued for the short payment for a period from 3/08 to 3/13 and he was paying under LT VI A tariff. The only question to be decided is whether the opposite party can issue a bill for 5 years from 3/08 in year 2013. According to the opposite parties, they are entitled to issue Ext.A1 bill on the basis of Ext.B1 order which gives retrospective effect for tariff change. Of course opposite parties are entitled to change the tariff w.e.f 01.12.2007 as per Ext.B1 order dated 28.05.2009. So it is clear that LT VIIA tariff is in force from 01.12.2007. But it doesn’t means or it doesn’t given any powers to the 2nd opposite party to issue a bill during 3/13 with retrospective effect from 3/08. Opposite parties also failed to adduce any evidence empowering them to collect the dues of electric charges for more than two years. Moreover it is also clear from Regulation 18(8) of Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2005 which is as follows: “The licencee shall not recover any arrears after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum become first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable in arrears of the charges of electricity supplied”. So the impugned bill for 5 years from 3/08 to 3/13 is illegal and is liable to be set aside and hence Ext.A1 bill is hereby set aside. However, opposite parties are entitled to collect the arrear of the complainant for 2 years (24 months) immediately prior to 3/13. Therefore this complaint is allowed as follows:
(i) opposite parties are directed to issue a revised bill from 4/11 to 3/13 along with cost of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order giving reasonable time for remittance of the bill amount.
(ii) In the nature and circumstance of this case, no order for compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of August, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Manoharan Nair. P
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Bill dated 19.03.2013 for Rs. 15,497/- issued by the
opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
A2 : Notice dated 19.03.2013 issued by 2nd opposite party in
the name of the complainant.
A3 : Calculation statement issued by 2nd opposite party in
Ext.A1 bill.
A4 : Copy of the rent agreement dated 11.01.2006.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Prasad. R
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of the order dated 28.05.2009 issued by the
Secretary, KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Manoharan Nair, Punnackattumannil Veedu,
Kaippattoor Muri, Kaippattoor P.O.,
Vallikkodu Village – 689 648.
(2) Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Kaippattoor. P.O. – 689 645.
(4) Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Circle,
Pathanamthitta. P.O., Pin – 689 645.
(5) The Stock File.
