DATE OF FILING: 26.02.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.47/2011
Between
Complainant : P.K.Gopi S/o Kunjukochu,
Parayil House,
Kamakshi P.O, Kamaskhi,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhyudhi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section, Painavu,
Idukki Colony P.O,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is running a small bakery and Cool Bar for his livelihood at Thankamany city. The said room was leased from one Mallika Sebastian, Manjaliyil House, Thankamany and availed an electric connection from the 2nd opposite party as Consumer No.10919 under VII B tariff. The complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. On 4.02.2011 an inspection was conducted by the Assistant Engineer Mr.S.Aji from the 2nd opposite party's office. As per the inspection, it was found that 3 bulbs of 40 Watts, 2 number of plugs of 60 Watts and a refrigerator of 750 Watts were used in the said premises and the total connected load was found out as 990 Watts. A mahazar was also prepared by them. After that on 7.02.2011 a notice was issued by the opposite party with an invoice stating that the complainant's electric connection was to be accounted as VII A tariff, it was used as VII B tariff and it was a misuse of electricity. The opposite party has got heavy loss because of the same. It was also demanded to pay Rs.4,302/-within 22.02.2011. The tariff of electricity was also changed from VIIB to VII A. The complainant was promptly paying the bills upto 13.08.2010 and the bills were under VII B tariff. But after the inspection, the opposite party issued a bill dated 21.02.2011. In the said bill the tariff was changed as VIIA, fixed charge was made as Rs.100/-, meter rent including the energy charge was made as Rs.486/-, Rs.4302/- as per notice dated 7.02.2011 and a total amount of Rs.4,788/- was demanded by the opposite party. So this petition is filed for cancelling the additional bill issued by the opposite party and also for changing the tariff from VIIA to VIIB.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant is conducting a bakery shop in the building of one Mallika Sebastian, Manjaliyil, Thankamany P.O by availing an electric connection as Consumer No.10919 from the opposite party. It is registered as 380 Watts on 24.12.2002, at the time of availing the connection and the tariff was fixed as LT VIIB for small shops. As per the gazette of the Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission, Bakery/Cool Bar (bakery without manufacturing process) is referred as under VIIA tariff. The complainant availed the connection in VIIB tariff and without informing the opposite party's office, he was using the same for the purpose of doing bakery shop, which was a misuse of electricity and which caused heavy loss to the opposite party. As per section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 it included in the electricity theft. As per the inspection conducted by the Section Squad of the opposite party on 4.02.2011 at 4.15 p.m, it was found that there is misuse of tariff. A mahazar was also prepared and copy of the same was given to the complainant. A provisional invoice was made for the penal bill as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act and a notice was issued to the said Mallika. It was also demanded to pay Rs.4,302/- before 22.02.2011 at the opposite party's office. It is also stated that if any complaint regarding the same that must be given to the opposite party. As per the provisions of the Electricity Act, penal bill is charged for minimum one year. So the consumption of one year was calculated and the said provisional bill was issued. No complaint regarding the same was given by the said Mallika Sebastian. On 24.02.2011 a notice including the final bill was also issued to the consumer stating that if any complaint regarding the same, after paying 50% of the bill amount, an appeal can be filed to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle. But it was not done by the consumer. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount and there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. No oral evidence adduced by both the parties. Heard both sides. Ext.P1(series) marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, he is conducting a petty shop at Hospital Junction, Thankamany for his livelihood and selling some bakery items in that petty shop. He was promptly paying all the bills issued by the opposite party and the bills are also produced. Ext.P1(Series) are the bills issued by the opposite party from 17.06.2010 onwards. The complainant purchased a second hand refrigerator from M/s.Home Care at Kattappana on 22.12.2010 by paying an amount of Rs.2,500/- and the bill issued by the said Home Care, which is an authorised service centre of Godrej was also produced by the complainant for perusal. On 4.02.2011 the opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant, a mahazar was prepared and a copy of the same was issued to the complainant. In which it is written that 3 bulbs of 40 Watts, 2 plugs of 60 Watts and a refrigerator of 750 Watts, that was purchased in the recent period were used by the complainant. So a total connected load of 990 Watts was written in the mahazar. The complainant never misused any electrical energy from the opposite party. There is no dues of electricity bills to the opposite party.
As per the opposite party, while inspection it is clear that the complainant was conducting a bakery and the bakery comes under VII A of electricity tariff issued by the gazette of the Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission. So a mahazar was prepared by them and copy of the mahazar was marked as Ext.R2. A provisional invoice was prepared according the the penal provision of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Section 135 of the Indian Electricity (Amendment)Act 2007. Accordingly the consumption was calculated as minimum one year for the penal bill and a bill was issued for an amount of Rs.4,302/- and a notice was also issued for the change of tariff from VIIB to VIIA.
The copy of the Schedule of Tariff supplied by the KSEB with effect from 1.12.2007 is produced by the complainant and in its page 147, it is clearly written that
" LT-VII(B) - Tariff applicable to consumers having connected load not exceeding 1000 Watts of shops/bunks/hotels and restaurants/ telephone/fax/email/photocopy booths and internet cafes. When the connected load in the above cited cases exceeds 1000 Watts, the consumers shall be charged under LT VII A. If the monthly consumption exceeds 200 Kwh, the entire consumption shall be charged under LT VII A tariff".
Here the connected load of the complainant's shop as per the mahazar is only 990 Watts. So the tariff applicable to the complainant's shop should be VIIB. But it is described in the same schedule that in bakeries without manufacturing process, LT VII(A) tariff is applicable. But the complainant argued that he is conducting a small petty shop and it is not a bakery. He is selling some bakery items like mixture etc. and it cannot be considered as a bakery. While drafting the petition it is mistakenly written as bakery and it is purely a petty shop. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that LT VIIB tariff is applicable to consumers of shops/bunks/hotels and restaurants having a connected load not exceeding 1000 Watts. As per the mahazar prepared by the opposite party, the complainant is having only 3 bulbs of 40 Watts and 2 number of plugs of 60 Watts. A refrigerator was the other equipment having a connected load of 750 Watts. But it was purchased only on 22.12.2010 and it was a second hand one, the bill of the same is also produced for perusal, eventhough it is not marked.
So we think that the bills issued to the complainant for the last one year were only a nominal amount. The maximum consumption is 62 units which varies from 61 to 63 from 17.06.2010 to 21.02.2011as per Ext.P1(series) bills issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The average bill amount is Rs.350/- eventhough the complainant used the refrigerator from 22.12.2010 onwards as per the bill. The total connected load for the equipments used was below 1000 Watts, that is, 990 Watts. The opposite parties are authorised to change the tariff of connection as per the law. In this case only because the complainant used electricity for the purpose of a bakery, where he is selling some bakery items and having a cool bar, the opposite party has changed the tariff as VIIA from VIIB and a penal bill has been issued. But upto 22.12.2010 he was using only 3 bulbs of 40 Watts and 2 plugs of 60 Watts in his premises. So it is not proper to charge such a huge penal bill for a low consumption. The opposite party can charge against the complainant from the day on which he was using the refrigerator, which was a second hand one from 22.12.2110. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party to charge a hike penal bill against the complainant for the entire period of one year, because he had connected the refrigerator only on 22.12.2010. Also for the only reason it is written in the complaint as a bakery. It is also seen from the mahazar that the complainant is conducting a very small shop for his livelihood and the opposite party considered the same as a very large commercial bakery. The building was owned by one Mallika Sebastian and the bills were issued in the name of the said Mallika. She is the consumer of the opposite party. But now the complainant is consuming the same and he has not received any chance to file his objection before the opposite party. So we think that the opposite party should cancel Ext.R3(a) bill for an amount of Rs.4,302/- dated 24.02.2011. If it is needed to change the tariff of electric connection, the opposite party should issue notice to the complainant and state the reason for the change of tariff. Penal bill can be issued only after the period of purchase of the refrigerator, that is from 22.12.2010.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.R3(a) bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.4,302/- and if it is needed to change the tariff of electric connection the opposite party should issue notice to the complainant for giving a chance to the complainant for hearing. After that if it is essential to issue penal bill against the complainant for the misuse of tariff, the opposite party can issue the same from 22.12.2010, the date on which the complainant purchased the refrigerator.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of May, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
Nil
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1(series) - Electricity Bills issued by the opposite party
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Photocopy of opposite party's letter dated 7.02.2011with provisional invoice dated 7.02.2011 for Rs.4,302/-
Ext.R2 - Photocopy of site mahazar prepared by A.S.Aji, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Painavu
Ext.R3(a) - Photocopy of Final Bill dated 24.02.2011 for Rs.4,302/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.R3(b) - Photocopy of Notice issued by the opposite party
