DATE OF FILING : 4.1.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.2/2010

Between

Complainant : P.J. Joseph,

Puthenkulam House,

Karunapuram P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv : Biju Scaria)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

K.S.E.B.,

Vaidhyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Executive Engineer,

K.S.E.B., Electrical Section,

Nedumkandom,

Idukki Ditrict.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Major Section,

Kattappana,

Idukki District.

(All by Adv: C.K.Babu)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant is running a green pepper processing unit as “High Range Spices” at Ramakkalmedu Kara and obtained an electric connection under LT-IV category from the opposite parties as consumer No.12192 of Nedumkandam section. The electric bills were issued regularly after taking meter reading and the complainant was promptly paying the same. The bills were in a range between Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- when the factory functions well and in other periods it may be in a range between Rs.1,500/- and Rs.3,500/-. The bill issued by the opposite party on 16.9.2009 was only for Rs.3,761/-. In October 2009 the complainant agreed to sell the above processing unit to one Mr.Sunny Mavelil, Manthippara Kara. But the licenses and electric connection are remaining in the name of the complainant itself. Matters being so, the 3^rd opposite party issued an additional bill stating, excess usage of the allotted power bill for the period during 10/1995 to 11/2000 for an amount of Rs.2,86,945/- to the complainant on 13.11.2009. The complainant enquired about the details of the above bill to the 3^rd opposite party, but he avoided a satisfactory answer and instructed to pay the bill before 26.11.2009 to avoid disconnection. The complainant has not committed any theft or misuse of electric energy. The electric energy bills were issued by the opposite party after taking meter reading. The opposite parties have no right to issue such a short assessment bill accusing audit report. If the opposite parties have committed any mistake or misappropriation, its burden cannot be imposed on the complainant. The issue of the above short assessment bill dated 13.11.2009 is purely matter of deficiency in service and a defect in service too. This petition is filed for cancelling the same.

2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that the complainant is a consumer under LT IV category of Nedumkandam Electrical section. Adjustment bill was issued on the basis of audit objection raised by the Regional Audit Officer, Thodupuzha. The date of connection of the consumer was on 14.7.1995. It is true that the Board issued a bill for Rs.2,86,945/- on 13.11.2009. As part of KSE Board's industrial promotion policy subsidised tariff was given to the consumer for the period from 7/1995 to 6/2000. The concessional rate was applicable to the energy consumed and not to the electricity duty which is payable to the State Government. By mistake the billing staff allowed the concession to the duty portion also. The short assessment on account of electricity duty amounts for the period, from 7/1995 to 6/2000 is Rs.31,375/-. During power cut period the LT consumers whose consumption exceeds the quota fixed shall be charged at the ruling tariff, that is no concession for the units which exceeds the quota fixed. But the bills were issued wrongly on the concessional rate for the excess consumption. Short assessment on this account, amount for the period from 4/1997 to 6/1999 is Rs.9,739/-. The consumer who had been sanctioned additional load had to install TOD meter for the new load (15 KW). Hence the short assessment has been made proportionate to the consumption from 3/1997 to 6/2000 is Rs.63,024/-. For the period from 5/1999 to 7/2001 the penalty 20% extra is charged only for fixed charge for not installing capacitors. But as per rule Board had to assess 20% extra for both fixed charge and energy charges. Hence the short assessment for the period of 5/1999 to 7/2001 on energy charges for not installing the capacitor and duty is Rs.83,439/-. Short assessment on light meter consumption during 10/2001 and 5/2002 amounts to Rs.382/-. While adjusting the credit the duty portion also took into account Rs.4,070/- is left as credit balance at the end of 31.10.2000. So the amount Rs.4,070/- has been given credit to the consumer. Rs.11,712/- has been given credit to the consumer on account of adjustment against fixed charge after applying Pre-92 Tariff. The details of the short assessment bill is summed up as below:

The bill for Rs.1,72,231/- had been served to the consumer on 20.09.2006, but the complainant has not remitted the amount. The consumer has consumed energy with a liability to pay the charge. The defendants have only demanded charge of energy actually consumed by the concerned which the consumer is legally bound to pay. Subsequently the consumer filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha vide his letter NO. GB1/appeal/2006-07/272 dated 20.10.2006 asked the complainant to remit 1/3 of the amount and the appeal was not heard. On receiving reminder from the Regional Audit Officer a revised bill including surcharge amounting to Rs.2,86,945/- was issued in 11/2009 (172231 + 114714).

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. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P3 are marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for cancelling the exorbitant bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant for his industry. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 was paying the electricity bills issued by the opposite party promptly without any default. The average rate of bill was from 15,000/- to 20,000/- when the factory functions well and in other periods, it was in a range between Rs.1,500/- and Rs.3,500/-. The bill issued on 16.9.2009 was only for Rs.3,761/- and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. A notice was issued from the opposite party on 13.11.2009 for a demand of an amount Rs.2,86,945/- excess usage of the allotted power bill for the period from 10/1995 to 11/2000 which is marked as Ext.P2. As per the cross examination of learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 admitted that whatever directions given by the opposite for the electric connection of the complainant were done by the complainant. The Senior Superintendent of the Electrical Section of the opposite party is examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that as per the audit in 2003, a bill was issued to the complainant for Rs.1,72,231/-. A complaint was given to the Deputy Chief Engineer by PW1, but DW1 is not aware what decision was taken for that complaint. After that the bill amount and interest was demanded by the complainant and it is Rs.2,86,945/-. After that the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- in that account. The opposite parties are issuing bill in every month and there is no objection for the same. The meter reading is taking by the meter reader in every month and on perusing the same the bills are issuing. If the complainant used an excess electrical energy than the allotted, that can be seen from the bills issued in that particular month.

If there is any excess use, that can be counted in the next month's bill. And if it is not done that, it is a deficiency in the part of the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the receipt for an amount of Rs.40,000/- paid by the complainant as per the direction of the Forum. In that, 4^th clause is written as APTS and it means Anti Power Theft Squad which is calculated and it is written as Rs.1,72,231/- in that account. That is a mistake happened to the opposite party. A surcharge amounts to Rs.39,990/- is calculated in Ext.P3. DW1 cannot say which period is counted for the surcharge.

As per the complainant, he was promptly paying all the bills issued by the opposite party and no dues has been made by the complainant. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the complainant was promptly paying the bill. As per the opposite party, the billing staff allowed concession to the duty portion of the bill to the complainant by mistake. So a short assessment was made on that account of electrical duty from the period 7/1995 to 6/2000 which is Rs.31,375/-. The bills issued to the complainant were wrongly calculated on the concessional rate for the excess consumption, so a short assessment of this account is calculated from the period 4/1994 to 6/1999 which is Rs.9,739/-. It was directed to install TOD meter for the new load on 15 KW which had been sanctioned additional. Hence the short assessment has been made proportionate to the consumption from 3/1997 to 6/2000 which is Rs.63,024. The penalty of 20% extra is charged for fixed charges for not installing capacitors. Hence a short assessment for the period 5/1999 to 7/2001 was charged as energy charge for not installing the capacitors and its duty is Rs.83,439/-. The short assessment on light meter consumption during 10/2001 and 5/2002 which is Rs.382/-. While adjusting the credit the duty portion also took into account Rs.4,070/- is left as credit balance at the end of 31.10.2000. Rs.11,712/- has been given credit to the consumer on account of adjustment against fixed charge after applying Pre-92 Tariff. Hence the bill amount of Rs.1,72,231/- has been served to the consumer on 20.9.2006. But the complainant has not remitted the amount. On receiving the reminder from the Regional Audit Officer, a revised bill including surcharge, Rs.2,86,945/- was issued in 11/2009, in which the complainant remitted Rs.40,000/- as per the order of the Forum. As per the complainant, there is no such bill dated 20.9.2006 issued to the complainant by the opposite party for Rs.1,72,231/-. If such a bill was issued to the complainant and it was not paid by the complainant, the electrical connection would have been disconnected by the opposite party. The complainant has complied all the directions given to the complainant at the time of availing the connection by the opposite party.

It is admitted by the opposite party in the written version that a mistake has happened to the opposite party in calculating the bill from the period 7/1995 to 6/2000 and Rs.31,375/- is charged for the same. And the opposite party wrongly calculated concessional rate in the period from 4/1997 to 6/1999 and so it charged Rs.9,739/- for the same. TOD meter was not installed by the complainant, but there is no notice or direction given by the opposite party to install the same is produced here. And as per the opposite party, a penalty of 20% extra is charged for not installing the capacitors. But there is no evidence to show that the opposite party instructed the complainant to install the same or no notice has been issued by the opposite party to show such instruction was given to the complainant. DW1 deposed that if any excess of energy consumed by the complainant, that can be charged in the very next month bill, it is not given by the opposite party and it is a deficiency in the part of the opposite party. In Ext.P3, it is also written that surcharge of Rs.39,990/- is calculated in the bill. But DW1 is not aware the period for the surcharge. And it is also written that Rs.1,72,231/- is calculated as APTS in Ext.P3. DW1 deposed that it is charged for Anti Power Theft Squad and it is written as mistake in the computer. It is also deposed by DW1, a bill was issued in 2006 for an amount of Rs.1,72,231/- and the complainant never paid the same. It is not explained that what prevented the opposite party to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant if such a huge bill was not paid by the complainant. DW1 also deposed that if such a bill was not paid by the complainant, the electric connection would have been disconnected. It means that the opposite party never issued any bill in the period 2006. As per the opposite party, there is a mistake happened to the opposite party in accounting the bill and the audit report revealed that an amount of Rs.2,86,945/- is due from the complainant which includes Rs.1,14,714/- as surcharge. But there is no mention about the period for the surcharge and the audit report is not produced by the opposite party. And it is also admitted that a mistake has been happened to the opposite party in calculating the bill account. It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party to issue such a huge bill without proper accounting and details. So we think that the complainant was promptly paying the bill issued by the opposite party and Ext.P1 bill has issued because of the default of the opposite party. Hence it is liable to be cancelled.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the Ext.P1 bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,86,945/-. The amount paid by the complainant as per order from this Forum can be adjusted to the future bill for the electricity of the complainant's electric connection. The opposite party can issue fresh invoice or bill after true and correct accounting. The copy of that audit report should be given to the complainant. The opposite party should also give a chance for hearing the complainant before issuing the same.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - P.J. Joseph.

On the side of the Opposite party :

DW1 - C.K. Krishnankutty.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the electricity bill dated 16.9.2009, for Rs.3,761/-.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the electricity bill dated 13.11.2009, for Rs.2,89,106/-

Ext.P3 - Cash receipt of K.S.E.B, No.227583 dated 24.2.2010 issued to the complainant.

On the side of the Opposite parties :

Nil.