BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 02/07/2011
Date of Order : 31/07/2012
Present :-
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 347/2011
Between
Molly Benny, | :: | Complainant |
Thelliyankal Bakery, Vazhakkulam. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 670. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, K.S.E. Board, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Electrical Section, Kalloorkadu. P.O. - 686 668. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. P.B. Asokan & George C. Varghese Advocates, XL/4664, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 031) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The short facts leading to the complaint are the following :-
The complainant has been issued a penal bill for having connected excess load unauthorisedly. The said bill consists of two components, current charges and fixed charges. She is ready to pay penalty pertaining to fixed charges. She had been paying current charges, since she had been paying them from time to time. This complaint is filed only with the prayer of setting aside the charges pertaining to current charges.
2. In the joint version filed by the opposite parties, the demand has been justified on the ground of the Electricity Amendment Act, 2007 and B.O. No. 368/2008 (DPCI/C-GI/182/2007) dated 07-02-2008. Also it is contended that the administrative remedy has not been exhausted.
3. No oral evidence to the complainant. Ext. A1 was marked on he side of the complainant. Ext. B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Both sides were heard.
4. The following points emerge for determination are :-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay penalty on current charges?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- The crux of the controversy is the liability of the complainant to pay penalty on current charges for having connected unauthorised load. We need not delve on other matters, because the parties are on agreement. The matter has been under Judicial Scanning by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 17266 of 2002 (E), where his Lordship Justice Kurian Joseph has observed. “........ the penalty has to be limited to the fixed charge portion. It is held that there shall not be any penalty by way of proportionate energy charges”, Whereas the issue involved in this case has been settled as explained above, there is no justification for the opposite parties to levy current charges over again, which had been remitted by the complainant in accordance with the reading recorded in the electrical meter installed by the opposite parties in the premises of the complainant. In view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, we need not discuss much on the contention of non-availing of the administrative remedies.
6. In short, the complaint is allowed as follows:-
Ext. A1 bill dated 22-06-2011 stands quashed.
However, fresh bill can be issued to the complainant demanding penalty for fixed charges to the tune of Rs. 9,600/-.
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 the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012.
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. 22-06-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the inspection report dt. 07-06-2011 |
=========
