IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 31/2010 (REMANDED)
Between:
Dr. Cherian, aged 69 years,
Director,
St. Thomas School of Nursing,
Malakkara.P.O.,
Pathanamthitta District.
(By Adv.R. Gopikrishnan) ….. Complainant
And:
1. The Secretary,
K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Asst. Exe. Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section,
Aranmula.P.O. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is conducting a nursing school under the name St. Thomas School of Nursing for his livelihood and the complainant is a consumer of the second opposite party vide Con.No.9431. The complainant is not a defaulter to the opposite parties for the electricity charges. While so on 19.02.2010, the 2nd opposite party issued a bill for ` 43,613 with a direction to pay the said amount on or before 26.02.2010. On examination of the said bill it is found that the said bill was issued on the basis of the inspection conducted in the premises on 16.07.2009 by audit team of the Accountant General. Actually no such inspection was conducted in the premises of the complainant so far as claimed by the opposite parties. The issuance of the said bill is against the existing principles of law and hence the said bill is liable to be set aside as the complainant is not liable to pay the amount to the opposite parties in connection with the above said illegal bill.
3. The issuance of the said bill caused mental agony and sufferings to the complainant. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for quashing the impugned bill along with the compensation of ` 10,000 and cost of this proceedings.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed a common version with the following main contentions:- According to the opposite parties, the complainant’s connection was given on 19.01.2002 with a permitted connected load of 3800 watts. On an inspection of the Audit Team of the Accountant General on 16.07.2009, the total connected load is found to be about 7000 watts which is 3000 watts above the sanctioned load. A site mahazar for the inspection was also prepared by the opposite parties. As per the terms and conditions of the Electricity Act and Rules, the provisional invoice for ` 43,613 is prepared on the basis of the site mahazar and issued to the complainant. The complainant is legally bound to pay the said amount. Consumers are not entitled to connect any excess load in addition to the permitted connected load without obtaining the sanction from the Electricity Board. But the complainant had connected excess load without obtaining the sanction of the opposite party. So the bill in question issued by the opposite parties for the unauthorised connected load of the complainant is legal and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount and thus there is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. Apart from the above contentions in the version, opposite party challenged the maintainability of this complaint by filing I.A as 38/2010 on the ground that the bill in question is only a provisional invoice and the complainant has not resorted the remedies in the circumstances of issuing provisional invoice and hence they contended that this complaint is premature. This matter was heard by this Forum and allowed the I.A and dismissed this complaint.
6. Being aggrieved by the order of this Forum, the complainant filed an Appeal as A.No.438/2010 before the Hon’ble CDRC. The Hon’ble CDRC allowed the Appeal and set aside the order of this Forum and the matter was remanded with a direction to dispose of the matter on merits.
7. Accordingly, this Forum took the matter again for disposal on merits.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 to DW3 and Exts.A1, A2 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
10. The Point:- The allegation of the complainant is that opposite parties issued illegal bill for ` 43,613 to the complainant alleging the complainant had unauthorized connected load. According to the complainant, he had no unauthorized connected load as claimed by the opposite parties. So the impugned bill is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
11. In order to prove the contentions of the complainant, an authorized agent of the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with two documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, he was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the authorization executed by the complainant in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of the impugned electricity bill for ` 43,613 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
12. On the other hand, the opposite parties contention is that the complainant’s authorized connected load is only 3800 watts. But the complainant had unauthorizedly connected an additional load of about 3000 watts in his premises and the said unauthorized connected load was detected by the opposite parties by their site inspection on 16.07.2009 and bill in question was issued on the basis of the site inspection and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.
13. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 3 officials of the opposite parties were examined as DWs.1 to 3 and one document was marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1 is the photocopy of the site mahazar dated 16.07.2009 prepared by the opposite parties.
14. On the basis of the contentions, arguments and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether Ext.A1 bill is legal and whether Ext.B1 site mahazar will stand. According to the opposite parties, Ext.B1 site mahazar is prepared as per the provisions contemplated in the Electricity Act and Rules and Ext.A1 bill was issued on the basis of Ext.B1 site mahazar and hence Ext.A1 bill is legal. According to the complainant no site inspection was conducted in their premises as claimed by the opposite parties and hence Ext.A1 bill is illegal.
15. As per the provisions of Electricity Act and Rules, site inspection should be in the presence of the consumer and site mahazar should be attested by an independent witness and a copy of the site mahazar should be served to the consumer then and there. But on a perusal of Ext.B1 site mahazar, it is found that the opposite party has not complied or observed the above said statutory requirement in conducting the site inspection and in preparing the site mahazar. Moreover, the date of site inspection is 16.07.2009 as per Ext.B1 site mahazar and the date of impugned bill is 19.02.2010 as per Ext.A1. The said gap of 7 months also casts seriuous doubts about the genuineness of Ext.B1 site mahazar. So it cannot be said that Ext.B1 site mahazar is legal and hence we find that Ext.B1 site mahazar is not legal. Therefore, Ext.A1 bill issued on the basis of Ext.B1 site mahazar is also illegal and hence the complainant is not liable to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties vide Ext.A1 bill. Thus this complaint is allowable.
16. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby Ext.A1 bill is hereby set aside. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 6th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : M.G. George
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Authorization executed by the complainant in favour of
M.G. George.
A2 : Photocopy of the electricity bill dated 19.02.2010 for
` 43,613 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Rajan. C.A
DW2 : Unnittan Abraham
DW3 : Jayachandran. M.T
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Site Mahazar
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Dr. Cherian, Director, St. Thomas School of Nursing,
Malakkara.P.O., Pathanamthitta District.
(2) The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) Asst. Exe. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section,
Aranmula.P.O.
(4) The Stock File.
