BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 25/04/2011
Date of Order : 29/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 206/2011
Between
P.N. Babuji, | :: | Complainant |
Puramadathottathil (H), Sangeetha Hotel, P.O. Junction, Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Major Section, Muvattupuzha. |
| (By parties-in-person) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. Briefly, the facts of the complaint are :
The complainant is running a hotel for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The hotel avails electric connection from the opposite parties under LT VII A tariff with consumer No. 14461. The complainant has been served with a penal bill to the tune of Rs. 54,959/- on the basis of audit report of R.A.O., Perumbavoor on the ground of short assessment. The complainant urges upon the Forum to set aside the bill because the demand is illegal on several scores.
2. In the common version filed on behalf of the opposite parties, the contentions challenging the demand is refuted on several grounds. They maintain that an unauthorised excess load of 2 KW was detected in the said connection and the additional load has not been regularized till date by the complainant. It is admitted that penalty for UAL is being charged along with regular bills from 6/2009 onwards. The penalty is imposed consequent on detection of short assessment by regional Audit Officer, Perumbavoor in 4/2010. The penal bill is not vitiated by limitation of time because regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 is applicable with respect to arrear bill and inapplicable to short assessment bills. Moreover, the opposite parties have not exhausted the internal remedies provided by Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003.
3. There was no oral evidence to the parties. Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 for the opposite parties. The learned counsel were them heard.
4. The short points for our consideration are :
Whether the penal bill is justified in law?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 penal bill issued to the complainant issued by the 2nd opposite party in the sum of Rs. 54,959/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand nine hundred and fifty nine only) lies at the focus of the dispute. The complainant contends that the demand is bad in law in as much as the recovery is vitiated by limitation of time and secondly the unauthorised excess load connected was regularized in the year 2007 after collecting penal charges.
6. The opposite parties are of the view that the question of limitation does not come in the picture because the demand is relatable to short assessment of charges and not arrear bill. Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005 prohibits recovery of arrears of charges only. As a matter of fact, what we think is that whatever be the nomenclature one would ascribe to such recoveries, what is prohibited by the said provision is recovery of money after the lapse of two years from the date on which it became due. In that perspective, we cannot accept the contention of the opposite parties as tenable. This is more so in view of Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003, the expression employed being 'sum due from any consumer'. It is significant to note that limitation of time therein is applicable in respect of 'Sum due from any consumer.' Hence in our perception there is no scope for any classification of the sum due.
7. The second contention is based on the additional load, which has been unauthorisedly connected in the premises of the opposite parties. The averment of the complainant is that he had once regularized the additional load. This contention had to be examined in the light of the admission of the 3rd opposite party that penalty has been imposed and charges in that count has been collected by the opposite parties. This disclosure supports the claim of the complainant that the unauthorized connected load had been regularized earlier. In that view of the matter, the argument of the opposite parties can be sustained.
8. The third limb of the arguments raised against the complaint is that the same is premature in as much as the complainant has straight away lodged this complaint without providing any opportunity to the opposite parties to review the matter in appeal before higher authority of the 1st opposite party. We think that contention also cannot be upheld in view of the Consumer Protection Act being enacted as a measure to provide better protection of the interests of the consumers for which provision have been incorporated which are not in derogation of any other enactment and in addition to them. In this regard., it is worthwhile to listen to the instructive observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in V.N. Shrikande (Dr.) Vs. Anita Sena Fernandez (2011 CTJ I (SC) (CP), wherein Justice G.S. Singhvi said :
“We may hasten to add that the power conferred upon the Consumer Forums under Section 12 (3), 18 or 22 to reject the complaint at stage of admission should not be exercised lightly because the Act has been enacted to provide for better protection of the interest of the consumer and the speedy and inexpensive redressal mechanism enshrined therein is in addition to other remedies which may be available to the consumer under the ordinary law. Therefore admission of the complainant filed under the Act should be the rule and dismissal thereof should be an exception.”
9. To conclude, for the reasons stated above, we allow the complaint and set aside Ext. A1 bill issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant.
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 29th day of August 2011.
