BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 20/04/2011

Date of Order : 29/09/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 207/2011

Between

 

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The facts of the complaint are as follows :

the complainant is a consumer under Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, since he is the beneficiary of the electricity connection availed by his land lord to the premise where the complainant is conducting a computer service centre to earn his daily bread by means of self-employment. The unauthorized connected load was regularized by the opposite parties in the year 2007 after collecting penalty. The complainant received a penal bill issued by the 2^nd opposite party on the basis of the audit report of Regional Audit Officer, Perumbavoor asking him to remit Rs. 12,561/-. The complainant contends that he is not liable to pay the said amount since the recovery is barred by limitation of time as prescribed by the Regulation 18(8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. Hence it is urged to set aside the impugned penal bill.

2. The opposite parties filed version stating that the penal bill is justified in law. It was detected that there was unauthorized connected load of 1 KW. As per Board order BO (FM) No. 368/2008 (DPCI/C-1/182/2007) dated 07-02-2008 the unauthorized additional load may be re-assessed at two times for fixed charges and current charges. In the audit conducted by the Regional Audit Officer, Perumbavoor in 4/2010 a penal bill for Rs. 12,516/- was raised towards short assessment of penalty from 6/2007 till load regularization on 12-06-2009. Penalty for UAL was levied from 6/2007 to 11/2008 only. But no UAL is seen charged from 11/2008 to 6/2009. The bill issued for Rs. 12,516/- is not an arrear bill but a short assessment bill, hence Regulation 18 (8) is not applicable in this case. Moreover, Regulation 24(5) of the said Code authorises the Electricity Board as licensee of electric supply, to recover any under charged amount by issuing a bill. Also the internal remedy before appellate authority as provided by Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 has not been exhausted by the complainant. Hence it is urged to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3. Both the complainant and the opposite parties did not have any oral evidence. Ext. A1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Both sides were heard.

4. The short points for determination are :-

1. Whether the amount in Ext. A1 recoverable by the opposite parties?

2. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- Ext. A1 bill is at the focus of the complainant. The complainant contends that he is not liable to pay the bill amount since he had already remitted penalty for having connected unauthorised load without the permission of the opposite parties. Moreover, the said excess load was once regularized. More pertinently the levy sought to be made in the impugned bill is barred by limitation of time as set out in Regulation 18(8) of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2005.

6. On the other hand, the opposite parties are of the view that they have every right to recover the bill amount eventhough they admit that regularization of the unauthorized load was regularized. They contend that the present bill covers the period which was left out when the earlier penal bill was issued. They take shelter under order BO (FM) No. 368/2008 of the Board, whereof, the Board is authorised to re-assess unauthorised load two times. Secondly, they hold the view that Regulation 18(8) cannot be pressed into service in the present case because the said Regulation addresses arrear bills whereas the impugned bill can be included in the category of short assessment bill. Not only that, Regulation 24 (5) of the aforesaid Code authorizes the Board as licensee to recover undercharged amount by issuing a bill. Lastly, the opposite parties describe the complaint as premature since the Board itself has provided internal machinery for resolution of such matter under Section 127 of Electricity Act, 2003.

7. On a careful consideration of the rival contentions, we are of the view that complainant gains an edge over the opposite parties in challenging the validity of the impugned bill on several counts. The contention that they had left out the period from 11/2008 to 6/2009 when the regularization of the excess load cannot be accepted in view of Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 which prescribes 2 years as the time limit to recover any amount from the date on which it became due. Of course, order BO (FM) No. 368/2008 permits the Board to re-assess the unauthorised additional load twice. But we are of the opinion that such a power cannot be exercised in derogation of the provision of Regulation 18 (8) and this is more so in view of the parent provision in the Electricity Act 2003 under which that Regulation is framed. Nor Regulation 24 (5) would come to the rescue of the opposite parties since the said Regulation cannot be construed to have an over riding power over the time set out by Regulation 18 (8) and the corresponding statutory provision of Electricity Act 2003 dealing with limitation of time. As a natural consequence, the complainant's contention that the impugned bill cannot be sustained in view of Regulation 18 (8) has to be rightly upheld.

8. Last limb of the contention of the opposite parties is that first of all, the complainant should have invoked the remedy under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003. This argument also cannot be sustained in view of the preamble and Section 3 of he Consumer Protection Act.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussions and deliberations, we just had, the inescapable conclusion is that the validity of the impugned Ext. A1 bill cannot be upheld and consequently the said bill must be quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the complaint, we do not allow any other reliefs.

10. To conclude, we allow the complaint and Ext. A1 bill dated 08-04-2011 issued by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant stands 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.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By order,

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 ::