DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of May 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 09/02/2012
(C.C.No.35/2012)
K.P.Muhammedali
S/o.Mohammad Ali,
Kizhakkepallikkal House,
Nattukal Post,
Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv.Rajesh.M)
V/s
1.Secretary,
K.S.E.B.
Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.T.Reena)
2.Asst.Exe.Engineer,
K.S.E.B.Electrical Subdivision,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Reena)
3.Asst.Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Kumaramputhur,
Electrical Section, Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Reena) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant had availed the electricity connection to his coconut plantation as numbered as 7219 under the opposite parties. He started to construct a residential building in the premises on 11/7/11. As the Panchayath in which the residential building work is started is not special grade Panchayath prior sanction for construction is not taken. On 11/7/2011 the construction work is started in the premises in accordance with the agreement with the contractor. On 26/7/11 a squad of the K.S.E.B. is inspected the premises and found that there is misuse of electricity as the agricultural connection provided for irrigation. A penal bill is issued against the complainant for an amount of Rs.4303/- and the same is remitted. Then another connection is provided for construction purpose. On 21/12/11 a provisional invoice is send to the complainant stating that the amount of Rs.97,362/- is pending as the earlier penal bill issued not cover any amount for misuse of energy for a period of one year. Objection preferred before the Assistant Engineer and a hearing was conducted on 9/1/12, in which the provisional bill is made as a final bill. The agreement between the complainant and the contractor is executed on 11/7/11. So there is no scope or any prior penal bill for misuse. Now the opposite parties are trying to disconnect the electricity connection provided to the consumer number. The acts of opposite parties comes into the category of clear deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to
1. Withdraw the penal bill dated 13/1/2012 issued to consumer number 7219 for an amount of Rs.93,084/- and
2. Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and
3. Pay the cost of the proceedings
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. Section 145 of the Electricity Act explicitly bars Civil Courts from entertaining any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in section 126 or an appellate authority referred to in section 127. So the complainant is having no locus standi to approach the Forum with the present complaint. On a site inspection conducted by the 3rd opposite party along with his staff on 26/7/11 at the premises of complainant, unauthorized use of electricity was detected. The consumer who has availed electrical energy for agricultural purpose was found using electrical energy for construction purposes. Also an unauthorized additional load of 188 watts was found. The complainant remitted an amount of Rs.4,000/- on 29/7/11. Coming to the civil liability on account of the unauthorized use of electricity found, the consumer was proceeded against under section 126 of the Act. The 3rd opposite party assessed the consumer for unauthorised act. After giving reasonable opportunity to the consumer to object, make a final order as per the proceedings dated 13/1/12. Then the complainant ought to pay an amount of Rs.93,084/- for the unauthorised use of electricity. The complainant has consumed 5496 units of energy from 16/1/2010 to 11/3/2011, 2017 units from 11/3/11 to 13/5/11 and 560 units from 13/5/11 to 13/7/11 making an average consumption of 2017 units for sixty days. If the energy was used for agriculture purpose i.e. a 3 HP pump is used for six hours per day then the consumption will come to only 900 units for a period of sixty days. The complainant has failed to comply the final order and demand raised accordingly compelling the opposite parties to disconnect supply. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Forum the supply was reconnected on 10/2/2012 when the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.20,000/- on the same day. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost.
Both parties filed their affidavits. Ext.A1 to A3 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
3. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1
According to the opposite parties Section 145 of the Act bars Civil Courts from entertaining any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred to section 127. Section 3 of Consumer Protection Act states that Act not in derogation of any other law:- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
Section 2(1) (o) service means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction) entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.
So the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to decide the matter on facts of the case in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act. Hence the complaint is maintainable. So the 1st issue answered in favour of the complainant.
Issue 2 & 3
Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties. As per Ext.A3 the complainant started to construct a residential building in the premises on 11/7/2011. But the complainant has not examined the contractor as a witness. Moreover the opposite parties stated that Ext.A3 tender schedule for civil works was not produced at the time of hearing. No contradictory evidence was produced by the complainant. The person who prepared the site Mahazar marked as Ext.B3 has not been examined. According to opposite parties the consumer who had availed electrical energy for agricultural purposes was found using electrical energy for construction purposes. The complainant stated that as the Panchayath in which the residential building work is started is not Special Grade Panchayath prior sanction for construction is not taken. The complainant has not produced documentary evidence to show that prior sanction is not required for construction in Special Grade Panchayath.
In Ext.B2, one Mr.Hamsa on behalf of the complainant admitted that the opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and found an unauthorized additional load of 188W.The complainant has raised no objection to marking of Ext.B2. In Ext.B3 the site Mahazar clearly shows that Hamsa and his family lived in the house more than 8 years. Ext.B5 the extract of the reading register shows the units of unauthorized use of electricity. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. The electric connection given to the complainant for agricultural purposes. In Ext.B3, on 26/7/2011 opposite parties found that there is misuse of electricity as the agricultural connection provided for irrigation. In Ext.A3 dated 11/7/11 tender schedule for civil works shows the descriptions of earth work and constructions. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that electricity was not used for construction work. Moreover the complainant stated that penal bill of Rs.4,303/- remitted and another connection is provided for construction purposes. We cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
In the above discussions we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove his case. In the result complaint dismissed.
Order in I.A. stands vacated. Directed opposite parties to give 5 monthly installments for remitting the additional bill amount, excluding the deposited amount.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of May 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Provisional Invoice No.5420493 for Rs.97,362/- of consumer No.7219
Ext.A2 – Final Bill No.2282279 for Rs.93,084/- of consumer No.7219
Ext.A3 – Tender Schedule for Civil Works
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Receipt (duplicate) dated 29/7/2011 issued to the complainant
Ext.B2 – Letter of request by the complainant to the opposite party
Ext.B3 – Site Mahazar prepared by the opposite party dated 26/7/11
Ext.B4 – Extract of the Consumers Personal Ledger from 9/2010 to 7/2011
Ext.B5 – Extract of the Consumer Reading Register from 9/2010 to 5/2011
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
