BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 521/2001 Filed on 24.12.2001
Dated : 16.02.2011
Complainant:
P.M. Shikhavudeen, Pazhayaparambil, Kumarapuram, Medical College P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-11.
(By adv. R. Somanathan)
Opposite parties :
The Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram-11.
(By adv. Shaji Chellappan)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18.01.2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 31.12.2010, the Forum on 16.02.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is the occupier of residential building having electrical service connection with consumer No. 8482, that the connection was originally given for construction purpose and charged at rate applicable to non-domestic use, that after completion of the building electricity being used by the complainant was for domestic purpose. The bills so raised from 07/98 by opposite parties under tariff LT I were regularly paid by the complainant, that on 01.09.1998 a bill was issued to the complainant stating that the said amount is the difference between the amount charged under LT I and amount under LT VII A for the period from 09/97 to 05/98, that opposite parties have no right or authority to change the tariff from LT I to LT VII A, that the electricity was used for domestic purposes, that even after the issue of additional bill on 01.07.1998 bimonthly bills were raised at the spot under LT I and the same were paid by the complainant, that opposite party had issued a bill for Rs. 32,680/- alleged to be the difference in tariff under LT I and LT VII A for the period. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in realizing charges under LT VII A from a consumer of electricity for domestic purpose. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to collect charge under tariff LT I only and to restrain the opposite parties from disconnecting the connection.
Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that the petitioner has earlier approached the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram vide O.S No. 1289/98, that the said suit was dismissed, that the present complaint is barred by resjudicata, that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, that the aforesaid connection is registered in the name of Dr. Sarah that the connected load at the time of giving connection was 1160 Watts and the same was effected on 14.10.1996 on LT VII A for construction purpose, that bimonthly spot billing system was in force from July 1997, that until then current charges were realised by way of provisional invoice card system, that the tariff of the consumer was recorded as LT I A due to over sight, that the said mistake was noticed by the spot biller on 06/98, that accordingly the difference in tariff rates for the period from 07/97 to 05/98 was calculated and served to the consumer. The difference in the amount worked out was Rs. 3,912/-, that the service connection was effected for construction purpose on LT VII A, thereafter neither permission for house wiring was issued from the opposite party's office nor house wiring details intimated to opposite party's office, that the then occupier of the building filed a petition before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the above said bill. The said suit was dismissed. Hence a short assessment bill was issued to the consumer on 13.11.2001 for Rs. 32,680/- for the period from 07/97 to 09/01 and requested the consumer to pay the amount before 22.11.2001, that as per clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy the change of tariff under LT from higher to lower tariff shall be permitted in bonafide cases by the officers not below the rank of Executive Engineer at the request of the consumer. The Executive Engineer shall satisfy himself of bonafides of the request. A supplemental schedule of the original service connection agreement showing the change in classification/tariff and the date of change over to the new classification/tariff has also to be got executed by the consumer. The said procedure is not followed by the consumer. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are :-
Whether the complaint is barred by the principle of resjudicata?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to realize other reliefs?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P3. In rebuttal opposite party has filed counter affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 & D2.
Points (i) to (iii):- The stand taken by the opposite parties is that the complaint is barred by resjudicata. It is the stand of the opposite party that the complainant has earlier filed a suit as OS No. 1289/98 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram which was dismissed on 28.09.1999. Ext. D2 is the copy of the said judgement dated 28.09.1999 in OS. No. 1289/98 of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On perusal of the said judgement it is seen that the complainant herein is the plaintiff therein in OS No. 1289/98 and opposite parties are the same in both cases. In the said Ext. D2 it is seen observed by the learned Munsiff that “the plaintiff filed this suit suppressing the fact that he is not the registered consumer. The owner of the building is also some one else. However, Ext. A1 bill and Ext. B1 document which plaintiff also admits would show that one Dr. Sarab is the registered consumer. Ext. A1 is issued to that registered consumer. The liability for the payment of the amount as per Ext. A1 is on that registered consumer. It was for the registered consumer to make proper application for change of the category(tariff rate). But that registered consumer is not even made as a witness in the suit. It is not shown that the plaintiff has any personal interest in the matter. In my view the suit is a vexatious one. None of the reliefs claimed in the suit is allowable. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs of the defendants”.
The issue herein is in regard to the conversion of tariff rate. Nowhere herein the complaint mentioned the name of the registered consumer. According to opposite parties the registered consumer is Dr. Sarah. It is to be noted that the registered consumer is not in the party array in the complaint. Moreover even though the present complainant is a beneficiary, he has no locus standi to file this complaint as the said Dr. Sarah is the registered consumer and had executed connection agreement with the opposite parties. Moreover the complainant has approached this Forum only for the same cause of action which he had already raised and resolved by the learned Munsiff in O.S No. 1289/98. Further complainant has never denied the submission by the opposite parties that consumer No. 8482 is registered in the name of Dr. Sarah. Dr. Sarah has not made a party in this complaint. Clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy deals with change of tariff. As per clause 30 of the Regulation relating to the conditions of supply of electrical energy “the change of tariff under LT from higher to a lower tariff at the request of the consumer shall be permitted in bonafide cases by the officers not below the rank of Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer shall satisfy himself the bonafide of the request and record reasons while permitting the change of tariff. A supplemental schedule to the original service connection agreement showing the change in classification or tariff and the date of change over to the classification or tariff has also to be got executed by the consumer”. As per the said clause 30, the consumer is the registered consumer who had executed the agreement. The complainant herein himself submits that he is the occupier of the residential building having electrical service connection with consumer No. 8482. He has nothing to do with the agreement executed by the registered consumer and without figuring the registered consumer in party array the complainant as the occupier of building alone cannot approach this Forum in connection with change of tariff. Further it is to be noted that as per clause 30, the change of tariff at the request of the consumer shall be permitted in bonafide cases by the officers not below the rank of the Executive Engineer. Here the Executive Engineer is not in the party array. Complainant has no case that he has filed this complaint with the consent of the registered owner. Further the registered consumer is not even made as a witness in the complaint. Without following the procedures stipulated in the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy the complainant without the consent of the registered consumer approached this Forum without clean hands. It is to be noted that the terms and conditions stipulated in the supply of electrical energy are statutory in nature. Registered consumer is the competent person to approach this Forum aggrieved by the decision if any taken by the opposite parties in regard to clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Registered consumer has no case. The learned Munsiff Court has already found that the suit OS 1289/98 is a vexatious one. The present complaint is in connection with the relief already sought in OS 1289/98. Complainant never challenged the decision of the learned Munsiff Court in OS 1289/98. In view of the above discussions and evidence available on record we are of the considered opinion that complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint without figuring the registered consumer in the party array and the complaint is barred by resjudicata.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
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 16th day of February 2011.
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 521/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of Bill No. 023515 dated 07.01.1998.
P2 - Copy of Bill No. 189651 dated 13.11.2001
P3 - Copy of Bill No. 0027.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of letter dated 18.11.2002 addressed to opposite party.
D2 - Copy of the judgement dated 28.09.1999 in O.S. No. 1289/98 of the II Additional Munsiff Court, Tvpm.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
