BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 27/04/2011
Date of Order : 29/08/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 218/2011
Between
V.M. Sabu, | :: | Complainant |
Vattamthittayil House, Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi 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. The factual matrix :
The complainant is a shop owner having electricity connection with consumer No. 20369 under LT VII A tariff. He had regularized the unauthorised additional load in 2007 after paying penalty charges. On 08-04-2011, penal bill on the same ground to the tune of Rs. 26,615/- was issued consequent on an inspection conducted RAO Perumbavoor based on short assessment. The complainant contends that he is not liable to pay the impugned bill amount, since it is barred by limitation and the excess load had been regularized in 2007. Hence it is requested to quash the impugned bill.
2. In the version filed by the opposite parties, it is explained why the disputed bill is in order and legal. The opposite parties are of the view that period of limitation prescribed in the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 is not applicable in the instant case. They also claims that the Board has the authority to penalize the authorised use of additional load. Lastly, they maintain that the administrative remedies provided in Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003 have not been invoked.
3. No oral evidence on either side . Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked for the opposite parties. The learned counsel were heard.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :
Whether Ext. A1 penal bill is justified in law?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complainant in the present proceedings assail the validity of Ext. A1 penal bill issued to him by the 2nd opposite party on the ground of excess load connected by him without permission. The complainant contends, that the charges are barred by limitation by virtue of clause 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 as the time limit prescribed by the said provision for recovery is two years from the date on which it became due. The opposite parties contend that Clause 18 (8) cannot come to the rescue of complainant because the said clause addresses arrear bill were as the impugned bill is issued for the recovery of short assessment of charges. We are unable to sustain the argument since whatever be the description one attributes to a recovery, ultimately for practical purpose, it is the recovery of money that had not been levied by the opposite parties in time. In that view of the matter, we think the contention of the complainant that the recovery is barred by limitation is not without merit.
6. Secondly, the complainant contends that the act of unauthorised connection of additional load had been once regularized after due payment of penalty charge. On the other hand, the opposite parties claims that it was not regularized. Ext. B1 would disclose that penalty was continuously recovered upto 4/2009. There was no impediment for the opposite parties to continue the collection of penalty even after 4/2009. That being so, now the recovery is impeded in law by estoppal and limitation. Therefore, we do not think it right and proper on the part of the opposite parties to recover the penalty at this belated stage.
7. Lastly, the opposite parties hold the view that the complainant ought to have first invoked the remedies provided in Section 27 of the Electricity Act 2003 instead of directly rushing to the Consumer Forum. We do not think this contention too contains any substance in as much as Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a beneficial legislation enacted for the better protection of consumers and the provisions enacted therein are in addition and not in derogation of any other law as provided in Section 3 of the Act.
8. In view of the reasons set out aforesaid, we allow the complaint and Ext. A1 penal bill dated 28-03-2011 issued to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party 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 29th day of August 2011.
