IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 25th day of August, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.180/2010 (Filed on 17.12.2010)
Between:
The Post Master,
Head Post Office,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Mathew Samuel) …. Complainant
And:
1. The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rep. by the Secretary, KSE Board.
2. The Asst. Engineer,
KSE Board, Electrical Section,
Pathanamthitta.
(By Adv. Annie Mathew) …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The facts of the case in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the consumer of opposite parties. There is regular payment of the bills issued from the KSE Board by the complainant. The connected load of complainant’s building is 5 KW since long. Complainant modernized the Head Post Office, Pathanamthitta and the Divisional office during the year 2007, by fully computerizing it. Because of this modernization, the total connected load is increased from 5 KW to 37 KW. The complainant informed about this increased use of electricity to opposite parties and requested for enhancement of the existing connected load as per the rules. Then the KSE Board authorities made an inspection and issued a letter dated 03.11.2008 to the complainant. As per the letter, the capacity of the transformer from where the connection is given is to be enhanced from 100 KW to 160 KW to meet the requirement at complainant’s cost. They also estimated the cost of such work at ` 1,41,736 and demanded the complainant to remit that amount.
3. The complainant has actually assessed the connected load of energy consumption at 37 KW. Since the connected load is much less than 100 KW, there is no need for a separate transformer and also need not have to pay for the improvement of the existing transformer from 100 KW to 160 KW as per the electricity rules. That apart, even if there is any additional cost to be deposited by the complainant that is required only for the extra fittings from the transformer to the complainant’s premises/terminal arrangements. This is clear from the order dated 23.04.2008 of the Executive Engineer, KSE Board, Electrical Division, Pathanamthitta. The complainant after the above said notice addressed to the 2nd opposite party on the above said matters and is still waiting for the reply. While so a surprise visit was made by the opposite parties on 28.07.2010 at the complainant’s building. Then a provisional assessment was made for the additional use of unauthorized load of 25 KW and issued a provisional invoice dated 06.08.2010 for ` 4,48,357. The complainant challenged this assessment by filing representation to the KSE Board on 11.08.2010. Thereafter, ignoring the complainant’s objection, opposite parties issued final bill for the same amount of ` 4,48,357 on 02.10.2010. Thereafter, 2nd opposite party had issued the regular monthly bill dated 27.10.2010 for ` 2,10,624. In the said bill, 2nd opposite party has charged penalty for the unauthorized use of 25 KW. By receiving these bills, the complainant addressed to the opposite parties to reconsider this bill with the final bill dated 12.10.2010 on several reasons and grounds.
4. As per an order of KSE Board dated 30.09.2010, they provide the voluntary disclosure scheme for consumers for voluntary disclosure of any additional load. By this scheme, the government consumers (including the buildings where government offices are functioning) and other consumers requiring installation of new transformer for conversion to higher voltage lending shall be given time up to 31.01.2011 for regularizing the load. As this scheme is in effect up to 31.01.2011, the action now taken by the opposite party against the complainant by issuing bill dated 12.10.2010 is illegal and against the notification/order stated above.
5. The complainant has written to the opposite parties on 25.10.2010 by questioning the final bill dated 12.10.2010 and requested to withdraw all actions under such demand and bill and also requested to regularize the connected load as per the order of KSE Board dated 30.09.2010. But no positive response was made from the opposite parties. On 29.10.2010 and 22.11.2010 complainant has remitted the bill amount of ` 2,13,042 which include the penalty of the additional connected load used. Then the complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the bill dated 12.10.2010, as it is illegal. Whereas on 24.11.2010 the 2nd opposite party disconnected the electric supply to the complainant without any notice. Only when the connected load exceeds 100 KW, installation of a new transformer on the expense of the consumer is required as per law. Therefore the action of the 2nd opposite party is illegal and not sustainable in law. Hence the complainant is not liable to pay the amount in the final bill dated 12.10.2010. Therefore the disconnection is illegal, which amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant/consumer.
6. The electric supply disconnected is a public office, where the Pathanamthitta Head Post Office and Pathanamthitta Postal Division office are functioning. Total 85 staffs are working there. These 2 offices are completely computerized. Large number of public is attending this office for their day to day work, which is carried over there. Thus the complainant and the public at large are put to heavy loss and hardship due to the illegal disconnection of electric supply by the opposite parties. The services being rendered in the offices of the complainant are public utility and welfare services.
7. Since after the disconnection, offices in the building of the complainant are being running hardly, by using generator set, which cannot be used continuously for more than 6 hours. Therefore, there is irregular supply of electricity in the office which resulted hardship for the day to day affairs of the complainant and the public at large. Hence this complaint to declare the final bill dated 12.10.2010 as an illegal bill and also direct the opposite parties to regularize the connected load of the complainant to their requirement, as per the order dated 30.07.2010 of the 1st opposite party and also to direct the opposite parties to reconnect electric supply to the complainant with cost.
8. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. According to them, complainant is a low tension three phase consumer with a sanctioned connected load of 5 KW under LT VIC tariff. Complainant had requested for additional load of 24 kilowatts only in addition to the existing 5 kilowatts allowed during 2008. It is false to say that complainant had applied for an additional load of 37 kilowatts. The second opposite party, after inspection of the premises and assessing the availability of power, recommended a proposal for enhancing the capacity of the existing 100 KVA YMCA transformer to 160 KVA. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Pathanamthitta has accorded sanction for the above proposal. The second opposite party issued a bill for ` 1,41,736 for enhancing the transformers capacity.
9. According to them, complainant’s requirement of additional load of 24 kilowatts could not be met from the existing 100 KVA YMCA transformer which was fully loaded. Neither the complainant’s nor anyone else, power requirement can be met from this transformer since there is no spare capacity available in this transformer as it is fully loaded. The opposite parties have got every right to decide technically, whether extension of electric line is required or not or whether a new transformer is to be commissioned or not or whether both extension of electric line with commissioning of new transformer is required or not. The decision entirely depends upon technical parameters like existing and proposed connected load of consumer and transformer, existing conductor size, length of conductor, existing capacity and load of transformer etc.
10. The opposite parties prepared the cost estimate for providing service connection as per Regulation 8(4) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and Regulation 5(4) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. These regulations stipulates that “the cost estimates for LT consumers shall include the cost of service line and terminal arrangements at the premises of the applicant, but shall not include the cost of meter, if connected load is below 50 KVA. For loads of 50 KVA and above, the connection shall be effected only after the installation of separate transformer of adequate capacity, the cost of which shall be recovered from the consumer”. It is crystal clear that the licensee can collect the cost of all service line (which includes transformer, conductors, lines, structures, supports etc.) and terminal arrangements excluding the cost of meter in the case of below 50 KVA consumers.
11. For below 50 KVA consumers, installation of new transformer is optional depending on the technical feasibility at site whereas for above 50 KVA consumers, installation of transformer is compulsory even if it is technically feasible without a new transformer. The opposite parties also has got the obligation to supply electricity at specified voltage and to maintain the voltage variation within the specified limits as per Regulation 4(2) and 4(3) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. The cost estimate for sanctioning the additional load is to be deposited by the complainant only after the completion of the work is totally wrong. As per terms and conditions of Supply 2005, the licensee shall complete the work within the time frame stipulated only after the receipt of the required amount from the applicant. The complainant had not approached the opposite parties or their subordinates or higher officials even after the receipt of the demand notice issued by the second opposite party on 03.11.2008, which was issued based upon their request for a total load of 24 kilowatts.
12. According to them, a fresh demand notice for ` 2,36,381 for enhancing the capacity of the existing YMCA transformer from 100 KVA to 160 KVA was issued to the complainant on 01.01.2011. The complainant had not remitted the said amount till date at the opposite parties’ office. The complainant had not till date availed his right to represent his disputes and difference through Regulation 56(1) and 56(2) of the KSE Board terms and conditions of Supply, 2005. As per surprise visit conducted by special squad, it is revealed that complainant had connected up to total load of 29950 watts in that premises against a sanctioned load of only 5000 watts. The complainant was served with a provisional invoice of ` 4,48,357 on 06.08.2010 along with a detailed calculation statement and disconnection notice, copy of provisional bill for the unauthorized connected load in their premises. But complainant had not submitted any objection. The complainant had submitted only a request on 11.08.2010 for time extension of one month for payment of the assessed amount.
13. Since the complainant had not file any objection, the provisional bill dated 06.08.2010 was finalized as final bill and served to complainant on 21.10.2010. Opposite parties admitted that complainant had remitted an amount of ` 1,09,593 on 29.10.2010 and ` 1,03,499 on 22.11.2010 including the bimonthly bill of ` 2,10,624 dated 05.10.2010 which includes the proportionate penal fixed and current charges for the unauthorized usage of connected load. The opposite parties have got every right to penalize the complainant for the unauthorized usage of additional load till the unauthorized load is regularized or removed. The Anti Power Theft Squad’s surprise inspection was conducted on 28.07.2010, but the voluntary disclosure scheme order issued only on 30.07.2010, it has no retrospective effect.
14. The complainant had remitted only ` 89,794 (excluding the proportionate penal fixed and current charges for the unauthorized usage of connected load for ` 90,102) on 06.01.2011 for the bimonthly bill (regular bills for ` 1,79,896 dated 06.12.2010). Again complainant had remitted only ` 77,928 (excluding the proportionate penal fixed and current charges for the unauthorized usage of connected load for ` 79,374) on 08.02.2011 for the bimonthly bill (regular bill) for ` 1,57,302 dated 06.02.2011. The complainant had remitted only ` 1,12,201 (excluding the proportionate penal fixed and current charges fort the unauthorized usage of connected load for ` 1,09,383) on 06.01.2011 for the bimonthly bill (regular bill) for ` 2,21,584 dated 01.04.2011. The service was disconnected only on 24.11.2010 due to the non-payment of the assessed amount dated 21.10.2010. With the above contentions, opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
15. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration.
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
16. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1, DW2 and Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B9. After the closure of evidence, both parties were heard.
17. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the bill of ` 4,48,357 issued by opposite parties. Ext.A2 is the order dated 30.07.2010 issued by KSEB. Ext.A3 is the order of estimate amount to ` 1,41,736 dated 23.04.2008 for enhancing 100 KVA Tr – 160 Tr issued by opposite parties. Ext.A4 is the process fee receipt of ` 110 dated 21.11.2007 issued by opposite parties.
18. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents. He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B9. Ext.B1 is the demand notice dated 03.11.2008 issued to complainant by 2nd opposite party. Ext.B2 is the letter of request for extension of time to 2nd opposite party by complainant dated 11.08.2010. Ext.B3 is the completion report dated 08.10.2010 issued to complainant. Ext.B4 is the copy of site mahazar dated 28.07.2010 prepared by 2nd opposite party. Ext.B5 is the copy of provisional bill dated 06.08.2010 issued to complainant by 2nd opposite party. Ext.B6 is the copy of calculation statement dated 06.08.2010 issued to complainant. Ext.B7 is the notice dated 06.08.2010 issued to complainant. Ext.B8 is the final bill dated 21.10.2010. Ext.B9 is the relevant pages of the KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005.
19. On the basis of the contention and argument of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. Complainant’s case is that their total connected load is increased from 5 KW to 37 KW and the same was informed to opposite parties for enhancing the existing connected load. In response to the information opposite parties estimated the cost of work as ` 1,41,736 and demanded to remit the amount to enhance the capacity of the transformer from 100 KW to 160 KW. But complainant replied that, the connected load is much less than 100 KW and there is no need for a separate transformer. Moreover, complainant need not have to pay for the improvement of the existing transformer from 100 KW to 160 KW as decided by opposite parties and if any additional cost to be deposited, that is required only after the completion of the said works. While so, opposite parties made a surprise visit to complainant’s building and assessed the additional load of 25 KW and issued a provisional bill of ` 4,48,367. Though complainant challenged it by representation, opposite parties issued the final bill with the same amount. Thereafter, opposite parties issued a regular bill of ` 2,10,624 in which they had charged penalty for the unauthorized use of 25 KW. As per order dated 30.09.2010, opposite parties provide a voluntary disclosure scheme for consumers to regularize the load and the operation of the said scheme was extended up to 31.01.2011. Though complainant made a request for regularizing the connected load, the same was not considered. Complainant remitted the bill amount of ` 2,13,042 which include the penalty of additional connected load used. Thereafter on 24.11.2010 opposite parties disconnected the electric supply without any notice. This is a clear deficiency of service.
20. Opposite parties contention is that complainant’s requirement of additional load of 24 KW could not be met from the existing 100 KWA YMCA transformer. Opposite parties admitted that complainant had requested for additional load of 24 kilowatts in addition to the existing 5 kilowatts during 2008 and issued a bill of ` 1,41,736 for enhancing the transformer capacity. According to them, the cost estimate for sanctioning the additional load is to be deposited by the complainant only after the completion of the work is totally wrong, but work starts only after the receipt of the required amount from the consumer. Opposite parties issued a demand notice for ` 2,36,381 for enhancing the capacity of the existing YMCA transformer from 100 KVA to 160 KVA to complainant. But complainant has not remitted it. Though opposite parties issued a provisional invoice of ` 4,48,357 on 06.08.2010, complainant neither paid nor filed any objection and the said invoice became the final bill. According to opposite parties anti-power theft squad inspection was conducted on 28.07.2010 but the voluntary disclosure scheme order issued only on 30.07.2010 and therefore they have got every right to penalize the complainant for the unauthorized usage of additional load till the unauthorized load is regularized or removed. Though complainant has remitted bi-monthly bill which included the proportionate penal fixed and current charges for the unauthorized usage of connected load, the service was disconnected only on 24.11.2010 due to the non-payment of the assessed amount dated 21.10.2010. Hence they acted lawfully and didn’t committed any deficiency of service.
21. It is not disputed that complainant informed the increased use of electricity and for enhancement of existing connected load from 5KW to 37 KW. Ext.A4 shows that complainant applied for the same. Ext.A3 shows that opposite parties acted upon Ext.A4 and inspected the premises and
directed to remit ` 1,41,736 for the cost of enhancing the connected load by installation of a new transformer. On a perusal of record it is learnt that there exist a dispute regarding that who will bear the estimate cost? According to complainant, they are not liable to pay the amount, since their request for enhancement of connected load is below 50 KW. According to opposite party, only after the receipt of the required amount they start work.
22. On a perusal of Ext.A2, it is seen that on 30.07.2010 KSE Board has introduced a liberalized policy by ordering voluntary disclosure for regularizing the unauthorized connected load of consumers. In this case, complainant has already disclosed the connected load as per Ext.A4. Though the dispute regarding payment of Ext.A3 amount is pending, it cannot be ruled out that opposite parties surprise visit on 27.07.2010 is to overcome Ext.A2 order dated 30.07.2010.
24. It is pertinent to note that complainant is not the only beneficiary of the upgradation of the existing transformer. Several other consumers are also the beneficiaries other than the complainant which is evident in DW1’s deposition which is as follows: “lÀPn-I£n LT consumer BWv. ]¯-\w-Xn« YMCA transformerþÂ \n¶mWv lÀPn-I£n¡v connectioin \ÂIn-bn-«p-Å-Xv. {]kvXpX transformer þÂ \n¶pw 100 e[nIw consumer-þ\v connection -\ÂIn-bn«pv”.
25. Since large number of consumers are using electricity as stated above, the burden of the new transformer imposed to the complainant by the opposite parties cannot justified. According to complainant installation of a new transformer in the expense of the consumer is required only when the connected load exceeds 50 KW as per Regulation 7 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and as per Regulation 4 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. As per opposite parties inspection, the connected load of the complainant is less than 50 KW. Opposite parties denied the above contention of the complainant by exhibiting Ext. B9. But Ext. B9 is not applicable to this case. Thus they failed to prove their contention.
26. Moreover, it is seen that complainant the Head Post office is a public functionary having 84 staffs working in District head quarters, Pathanamthitta. The function carried out by them is a public utility service for the well being of the public. Opposite parties disconnected the supply without considering the above facts. Since complainant is a Central Government Department and public office, the weapon of disconnection has to be used sparingly and not mechanically.
27. From the overall facts and circumstances and the available evidence on record, we are of the view that opposite parties disconnection of complainant’s connection is illegal, unjust, irrational and against the spirit of Ext.A4. Since Ext. A4 is persisting and not resolved, we cannot find any logic behind the surprise visit and issuance of Ext.A1. Moreover, complainant is entitled to the benefit of Ext.A2. Therefore issuance of Ext.A1 and the penal portion of the subsequent bills are improper and irregular and are liable to be set aside. Hence complaint is allowable.
28. In the result, complaint is allowed thereby, Ext.A1 bill is set aside and opposite parties are directed to regularize the connected load of the complainant as per Regulation 7 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 and Regulation 4 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite parties are further directed, either to refund or to adjust in the future bills, the penal charges collected subsequent to the issuance of Ext. A1 along with cost of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) to the complainant.
29. In the light of this order, I.A.186/2010 and I.A. 11/2011 are also disposed as the prayers in the I.A’s are infructuous now.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of August, 2012.
(Sd/-)
N. Premkumar,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Mathew. P.K.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Bill dated 12.10.2010 for ` 4,48,357 issued by opposite
parties to the complainant.
A2 : Order dated 30.07.2010 issued by KSEB.
A3 : Order of estimate dated 23.04.2008 for ` 1,41,736.
A4 : Receipt dated 21.11.2007 for ` 110 issued by opposite
parties.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Baiju. G.
DW2 : Saji. M. Thankachan
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Demand notice dated 03.11.2008 issued by Asst.
Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Pathanamthitta
to complainant.
B2 : Letter dated 11.08.2010 issued by the complainant to
2nd opposite party.
B3 : Completion report dated 08.10.2010 issued by 2nd opposite
party.
B4 : Copy of site mahazar dated 28.07.2010 prepared by 2nd
opposite party.
B5 : Copy of provisional bill dated 06.08.2010 for ` 4,48,357
issued by 2nd opposite party to complainant.
B6 : Calculation statement prepared by second opposite party .
B7 : Notice dated 06.08.2010 issued by 2nd opposite party to
complainant.
B8 : Final bill dated 21.10.2010 for ` 4,48,357 issued by 2nd
opposite party to the complainant.
B9 : Relevant pages of the KSEB terms and conditions of supply
2005.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) The Post Master, Head Post Office, Pathanamthitta.
(2) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,
KSE Board, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) The Asst. Engineer, KSE Board, Electrical Section,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
