BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. Nos. 73/2000 & 185/2000 Filed on 4/02/2000 and

Dated: 15..09..2010 31/03/2000

Complainant:

B. Vasudevan, S/o Velayudha Panicker, 'Aswathy', Opposite Mosque, Kattakkada.

(By Advs. S.V. Premakumaran Nair & C.S. Rajmohan)

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board – Represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananhapuram.

2. The Executive Engineer, KSEB., Nedumangadu.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kattakkada.

    

   (By Adv. S. Balachandran)

These O.Ps having been heard on 19..05..2010, the Forum on 15..09..2010 delivered the following:

COMMON ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaints are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. 12039, that electric connection is to a shop building in which one Mr. Gopi of Lekshmi Bhavan is conducting business, that on getting information from Mr. Gopi the complainant has made a complaint to opposite parties to check the functioning of the meter, but opposite parties did not respond, that on 25/1/2000, opposite parties issued a bill dated 15/12/1999 for Rs. 15,124/-, that against the bill complainant filed complaint before the opposite parties, but it was in vain, that the calculation made in the bill was illegal against which complainant filed O.P. 73/2000. Thereafter 3^rd opposite party issued a letter/notice dated 18/3/2000 stating that he had inspected the building on 10/3/2000 and found the connected load as 1445 watts instead of 220 watts., and hence tariff has been changed from LT VII B to LT VII A with effect from 10/3/2000, and assessed an amount of Rs.11,584/- that on receiving the said letter complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party, but he threatened that the supply will be disconnected within 15 days, against which complainant filed O.P. 185/2000. Hence these complaints to declare that complainant is not liable to pay any amount as per the bill dated 15/12/1999 and as per notice dated 18/3/2000 and to restrain the opposite parties from disconnecting the supply to consumer No.12039 and to pay compensation and cost to the complainant.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No. 12039, that the tariff category assigned was LT VII B, that the LT VII B is applicable to shops, restaurants etc.....where connected load does not exceed 1000 watts, that since the connected load of the consumer was found as 1445 watts during the site inspection on 10/3/2000, the tariff was changed to LT VII A, that complainant was paying current charges as per the Provisional Invoice Card, that complainant had consumed excess energy for the period from 9/97 to 9/99 for which an additional bill dated 15/12/1999 for Rs. 15,124/- has been served to the consumer with due date of payment on 6/1/2000, that complainant had not remitted the said amount, that service has not been disconnected due to the pendency of O.P. 73/2000 before this Forum against issuing the aforesaid additional bill, that after inspection on 10/3/2000 the tariff was changed to LT VII A and accordingly a notice to this effect was served on the consumer intimating that the amount arrived at comes to Rs. 11,584/- for the actual consumption of energy (less the PIC amount) for the period of six months from 9/99 to 3/2000. The bill and notice issued by opposite parties is legal and opposite parties have every right to realise the amounts and disconnect the supply. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill dated 15/12/1999 and notice dated 18/3/2000?

    

2. If the said amount is genuine, whether complainant is entitled to get an order of injunction against opposite parties?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and cost of proceedings?

In support of the complaints, complainant has filed affidavit in both cases and has marked Exts. P1 to P4 in O.P 73/2000 and Exts. P1 to P3 in O.P. 185/2000. Commission Report (Electrical Inspector's Report) has been marked as Ext.C1. In rebuttal, 3^rd opposite party has filed affidavit in both cases and has marked Exts. D1 to D8 in O.P 73/2000 and Exts. D1 to D4 in O.P. 185/2000.

4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.12039 and he had remitted electric bill upto 2/2000 as per the Provisional Invoice Card issued for 40 units per month. It has been the case of the complainant in O.P 73/2000 that, on getting information from Mr. Gopi, though he had made complaint as to the functioning of the meter to opposite parties to check up the meter, the opposite parties did not respond positively, that on 25/01/2000 opposite parties issued a bill dated 15/12/1999 demanding the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.15,124/- for 24 months, against which the petitioner preferred a complaint before the opposite parties, but it was in vain. It has also been the case of the complainant that the calculation of average energy consumption for 24 months is without any basis, that opposite party has no authority to demand interest for the amount and that opposite parties calculated the charge on total unit of 4431 in a progressive manner. It has been the case of the complainant in O.P 185/2000 that during the pendency of O.P.73/2000 before this Forum, 3^rd opposite party issued a letter/notice dated 18/3/2000 stating that he had inspected the building on 10/3/2000 and the connected load was 1455 watts instead of 220 watts and hence tariff has been changed to LT VIIA with effect from 10/3/2000 and that a penalty of Rs. 11,584/- has been imposed calculating 6 months average consumption prior to his visit and 3 time the rate applicable to the respective tariff. Though complainant approached 3^rd opposite party and challenged the said notices no action was taken by opposite parties. It is rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that as per the readings taken once in every six months, monthly consumption for the period from 9/97 to 3/98 was 185 units, from 3/98 to 9/98 – 188 units, from 9/98 to 3/99 – 159 units, and from 3/99 to 9/99 – 206 units, making an average monthly consumption of 185 units for 24 months from 9/97 to 9/99, that the Provisional Invoice Card issued was for 40 units per month, that for excess consumption of the energy during the said period an additional bill for Rs.15,124/- dated 15/12/1999 had been served on the consumer with due date of payment as 6/01/2000. It has been contended by opposite parties that the meter installed in the premises has been working properly and no complaint was received from the consumer about the defect of the meter. There is no dispute on the point that consumer had paid the current charges upto 1/2000 as per the Provisional Invoice Card given for 40 units per month. It is further contended by opposite parties that if the consumers under LT VII commercial tariff like the petitioner exceed a particular block of consumption, the entire consumption is to be changed under the next block and as such there is no illegality in the matter. Further, it is submitted by opposite parties that on inspection of the premises by 3^rd opposite party it was seen that an unauthorised extension of wiring has been carried out by the consumer and thereupon connected load was found to be 1445 watts as against an authorised load of 220 watts, thereby the tariff was changed to LT VII A with effect from 10/3/2000; and the misuse of energy was billed at 3 times the normal rate applicable to the respective tariff for a period prior to six months from the date of inspection and the same was disconnected without notice as per clause 42(d) of the conditions of Supply of energy and a notice to the effect was served on the consumer intimating the penalty of Rs.11,584/- for the period of six months from 9/99 to 3/2000. There are four exhibits in O.P 73/2000 from the side of the complainant and 8 exhibits from the side of opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 15/12/2009 for Rs. 15,124/- for the period from 9/97 to 9/99 (24 months). Ext. P2 is the copy of the Provisional Invoice Card, wherein the average monthly consumption written is 40 units and tariff is under LT VII B and monthly amount to be remitted is Rs. 111/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 20/5/1998 addressed to Assistant Engineer, Kattakkada KSEB informing him of the malfunctioning of the meter for a long time and requesting him to inspect the meter and replace the same with a new one, Ext. P4 is the copy of the letter dated 31/7/1999 addressed to Assistant Engineer, KSEB Kattakkada reminding him of the early letter sent by the consumer in regard to the defect of the meter and its replacement. There are three exhibits in O.P.185/2000 from the side of the complainant and four exhibits from the side of the opposite parties. Ext. P1 is the adjustment invoice dated 24/3/2000 for Rs. 11,584/-. Ext. P2 is the letter/notice dated 18/3/2000 issued by 3^rd opposite party to the consumer stating that as per clause 42(d) of the conditions of Supply of Energy, the consumption prior to six months from the date of inspection is to be billed at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff and the amount comes to Rs.11,584/- and the supply disconnected without notice. As per Ext. P2, consumer was directed to regularise the unauthorised wiring within 15 days from the date of acceptance of this letter, further consumption will continuously be billed at 3 times the rate applicable for LT VII A. Ext. P3 is the Provisional Invoice Card issued under LT VII A tariff. As per the new Provisional Invoice Card, the average monthly consumption is 175 units and monthly amount to be remitted is Rs.1,013/-. Opposite parties have produced Exts. D1 to D8 in O.P 73/2000 and Exts. D1 to D4 in O.P 185/2000. Ext.D1 is the copy of the Meter Reading Register. Ext. D3 is the copy of the site mahazer prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer. Ext. D2 is the calculation statement of additional bill of Rs.15,124/- from 9/97 to 9/99. Ext. D4 is the copy of the calculation sheet for additional bill of Rs.11,584/- for the period from 9/99 to 3/2000. Ext. D5 is the copy of the letter dated 08/03/2000 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer to consumer. Ext. D6 is the copy of the meter reading register from 12/9/2001 to 9/7/2002. Ext. D7 is the copy of the Kerala Gazette dated 7/8/2001. Ext. D8 is the copy of the Report by the Electrical Inspector. The learned predecessors of this Forum appointed Electrical Inspector to examine the system, and file a report on the following points:

1. Whether consumption exceeds 1000 watts

2. Whether there is illegal tapping of power

3. Whether the bill in 'question' has been correctly prepared.

The Electrical Inspector's Report has been marked as Ext. C1. As per Ext.C1, "the building comes under Electrical Major Section, Kattakkada, and having consumer No.12039. The building has two rooms which were utilised for running a tea shop. A single phase energy meter is seen provided in the building. Reading as on the date of inspection (19/11/2002) is 2301.9. It is reported by the Electrical Inspector that at the time of inspection, all electrical fittings from the building were seen dismantled. Therefore, the connected load of the consumer could not be ascertained. Signs of unauthorised loads were seen at the site. As regards additional bill for Rs.15,124/-, commission has noted the following points:

“As per records of KSEB 4431 units of electricity consumed from 9/97 to 9/99. The average monthly consumption is 185 units. As per the Service Register the consumer is entitled to avail only 40 units per month. Therefore KSEB authorities issued an additional bill for the actual consumption of electricity from 9/97 to 9/99 considering all the tariff revision. So additional amount of Rs.15,124/- is seen prepared as per norms”. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties has challenged the report furnished by the Electrical Inspector. It is pertinent to point out that as per Ext. C1 all the Electrical fittings were dismantled, as such commission could not ascertain the connected load at the time of inspection. As regards, illegal tapping of power commission reports that “Signs of unauthorised loads were seen at the site”. As regards additional amount of Rs. 15,124/- as per Ext. P1 bill dated 15/12/99 Electrical Inspector reports that the said bill is seen prepared as per norms. It is pertinent to point out that Ext. P1 bill (in O.P 73/2000) was issued to consumer on 15/12/1999 while Ext. P1 bill (in O.P 185/2000) was issued on 24/3/2000. On a perusal of Ext. D1 meter reading register, it is seen that no meter reading recorded on 3/97 due to D/L, meter reading on 9/97 was 6119, which rose 7231 on 3/98, which rose to 8360 on 9/98 and on 9/99 meter reading was 550 RC. Though meter reading was recorded in Ext.D1 once in every six months opposite parties remained as a passive spectator without issuing adjustment bills in time and they became active only on 9/99 by issuing a single adjustment bill for a whole period retrospectively from 9/97. Had opposite parties taken meter reading in time they would have issued adjustment bills then and there. Opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to prove the contention of opposite parties that “they were very particular in issuing adjustment bills but in this case they could not maintain regularity due to unforeseen reasons which were beyond their control”. Issuance of adjustment bill against the conditions of supply will definitely amount to deficiency in service. To prove the status of the meter, neither the complainant nor the opposite parties had taken any steps. Expert Commission could not ascertain whether consumption exceeded 1000 watts, due to all the electrical fittings being dismantled. However, he reported that were signs of unauthorised loads. No mahazar witness was examined by opposite parties despite the mahazar being challenged by the complainant. It is pertinent to point out that as per Regulation 42(d) if the consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior permission of the Board or energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is without Board's knowledge and approval for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable coming under misuse of energy within the meaning of the Indian Electricity Act. Misuse of energy will be billed at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuse there are convincing reasons for adopting different periods and supply disconnected without notice. According to opposite parties the permitted connected load was 220 watts, but opposite party had used a connected load of 1455 watts. Complainant's case is that there is only one power plug and 6 switches alone, that maximum consumption per day comes only for 4 units. Though complainant challenged Exts. D3 & D4 while on perusal of Ext. D4 meter reading register, it is seen that consumer is put under LT VII B tariff, which is totally contradicting the mahazar report. No mahazar witnesses was examined to substantiate the contention of the opposite party that the consumer has used 1455 watts. Though commissioner has reported there were signs of unauthorised loads, there is no cogent and clinching evidence to show that consumption exceeded 1000 watts thereby to convert tariff from VII B to VII A. In view of the above, we do not find there is any reason in favour of opposite parties to issue Ext. P1 bill dated 24/3/2000 and Ext.P2 notice dated 18/03/2000 in O.P 185/2000 to the complainant. Ext. P1 bill dated 24/3/2000 in O.P 185/2000 deserves to be cancelled. As regards, Ext. P1 dated 15/12/1999 in O.P 73/2000, there is no evidence in favour of the complainant to show that the meter was defective/faulty as such there is no reason to disbelieve the reading recorded there in Ext. P1 dated 15/12/1999. Delay in issuance of adjustment bill would definitely saddle the complainant to the extent of which there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties shall pay Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of proceedings and the same shall be adjusted in the bill dated 15/12/1999.

In the result, O.P.73/2000 is partly allowed and O.P.185/2000 is allowed. Complainant is directed to pay Ext. P1 bill dated 15/12/1999 (in O.P 73/2000) after deducting a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings, from the bill amount of Rs.15,124/-. The Ext. P1 bill dated 24/3/2000 and Ext. P2 notice dated 18/03/2000 issued by opposite party to the complainant are hereby quashed. Complainant is entitled to get the connection restored on remittance of the aforesaid amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of September, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI. A.,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No: 73/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Vasudevan

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of the bill dated 15/12/1999

P2 : Copy of the Provisional Invoice Card

P3 : Copy of the letter dated 20/5/1998 addressed to opposite parties

P4 : Copy of the letter dated 31/07/1999 addressed to opposite parties

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of the Meter Reading Register

D2 : Calculation statement of additional bill of Rs.15,124/- from 9/97 to 9/99

D3 : Copy of the Site Mahazar dated 10/3/2000

D4 : " calculation sheet for additional bill of Rs.11,584/- for the period from 9/99 to 3/2000.

D5 : " letter dated 18/3/2000

D6 : " Meter Reading Register from 12/9/2001 to 9/7/2002

D7 : " Kerala Gazette dated 7/8/2001

D8 : " Report by the Electrical Inspector.

V. Court Witness : NIL

VI. Court Ext:

CR : Commission Report.

PRESIDENT

ad.

O.P.No: 185/2000

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Original Adjustment Invoice dated 24/3/2000 for Rs. 11,584/-.

P2 : The letter/notice dated 18/3/2000 issued by 3^rd opposite party to the consumer.

P3 : The Provisional Invoice Card.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of Meter Reading Register.

D2 : " Site Mahazar dated 10/3/2000

D3 : " letter dated 18/3/2000

D4 : " Meter Reading Register

V. Court Witness : NIL

VI. Court Ext : NIL

PRESIDENT