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. 59/2004 Filed on 06.02.2004
Dated : 30.09.2010
Complainant:
R. Gopalakrishnan, Sree Valsom, Bharathannoor, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties :
Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Kallara.
(By adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
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 29.04.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and reheard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 31.07.2010, the Forum on 30.09.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was running a computer training centre at Kallara in a rented building wherein the 2nd opposite party has provided electric supply vide consumer No. 12567, that complainant from September 2002 onwards requested the 2nd opposite party, several times, to take the meter reading and provide demand notice for payment of electricity charges, that opposite parties did not turn up to the premises for taking meter reading and providing the bill. Complainant got a demand bill in October 2003 with exorbitant amount owing to the wrong tariff, that complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to correct the bill, but the opposite party denied it, that in order to avoid further loss complainant had paid the bill amount on 03.11.2003 and thereafter made several attempts to get back the excess amount charged. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund excess amount with interest along with compensation and costs.
Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint since the said consumer number has been registered in the name of Sri. Gopinathan, that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Board and that there was no such request from the complainant and there was no necessity for the complainant to make such request since he was not a consumer of the opposite party. Meter reading of the consumer was taken on 31.10.2003 and bill was issued, that the bill issued during 10/03 was under the original tariff, that the bill issued was in no way exorbitant, that neither the complainant nor the consumer made any request for change of tariff, that opposite parties acted only as per rules and hence there was no negligence, mal administration or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, that no excess amount has been collected from the complainant and hence there is no necessity to refund the amount. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The points that arise for consideration are:-
Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4. Complainant has been cross examined by the 2nd opposite party. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has been examined in chief and cross examined by the complainant and has marked Ext. D1.
Points (i) to (iii):- There is no point in dispute that 2nd opposite party has provided electric connection to consumer No. 12567. According to opposite parties, the said connection stands registered in the name of Sri. Gopinathan and as such the privity of contract is between Sri. Gopinathan and the Board. It has been the case of the complainant that he commenced a computer training centre in June 2002 in a rented building No. K.P 11/1827 to which opposite party provided the aforesaid electric connection vide consumer No. 12567, that no timely consumer bill was issued to the complainant, that even after repeated requests opposite party had issued a bill in October 2003 under wrong tariff (VII A) instead of being billed under LT VI B tariff, and that though complainant wounded up the business he had paid the bill amount in order to avoid further rent loss. Though complainant made several attempts to get back the excess amount charged which resulted in futility. It has been rebutted by opposite parties that the aforesaid electric connection stands registered in the name of Sri. Gopinathan, under LT VII A tariff, that neither the registered consumer nor the complainant had approached with any complaint regarding the bill, that the registered consumer never made any request for change of tariff, that a change of tariff can be effected only on the application of the consumer and only after a supplemental schedule to the original service connection agreement showing the change in classification tariff and the date of change over to the new classification has also got to be executed by the consumer as per Rule 30 of the C.S.E.E. It is the stand of the opposite parties that the registered consumer is the necessary party in this case and without figuring the registered consumer in the party array in the complaint, this complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. According to opposite parties, the complainant in this case has no locus standi to file this complaint. Further it is contended by the opposite parties that a dispute in respect of change of tariff is not maintainable before this Forum. Ext. P1 is the copy of the bill dated 31.10.2003 for Rs. 6,813/-. A perusal of Ext. P1 reveals that the bill is prepared under LT VII A tariff and connected load is 2 KW. Ext. P2 is the copy of the receipt for Rs. 6,813/- issued by the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the copy of the premises meter card. On perusal of Ext. P3 it is seen that the name of the registered consumer is K. Gopinathan, date of connection is 16.05.2002 and consumer No. is 12567. As regards meter reading, readings were 211 on 07.12.2002 and 779 on 31.10.2003. Ext. P4 is the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party by the complainant requesting him to arrange the refund of excess charge collected. Opposite party has produced copy of the ledger (Ext. D1) showing the consumer No. 12567. On perusal of Ext. D1 it is seen that connection to consumer No. 12567 was initially given under LT VII A tariff and from 05/04 onwards tariff has been changed to LT VII B. Evidently by Ext. D1, at the time of issuance of Ext. P1 bill the connection was given under LT VII A tariff. It is pertinent to point out that complainant has produced a copy of the rental agreement, executed by himself in favour of Gopinathan, which is on the record, wherein it is seen mentioned that he has taken possession of one room in the building No. KP 11/1827 on rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month for eleven months from 15.06.2002 and by Ext. P3, connection to consumer No. 12567 is given to K. Gopinathan from which it can be inferred that the electric connection to the said building No. K.P 11/1827 has been given by opposite parties under LT VII A category, from which one room is seen possessed by the complainant for his business purpose. Complainant has no case that he has taken electric connection to his rented room separately for running a computer training centre and the same has been put under LT VII A tariff instead of being put under LT VI B tariff. Since the initial connection to consumer No. 12567 was under LT VII A category consumer is liable to pay the tariff under which the said connection was given till the date of conversion of tariff by opposite parties irrespective of the business whatsoever being run by the complainant therein in the said building. As such billing under LT VII A tariff cannot be said to be illegal and unilateral. Further, though opposite party has raised the contention in the version that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint without figuring the registered consumer in the party array, complainant has not taken any steps to implead the registered consumer as additional complainant in this case. Further, it is to be mentioned that, a change of tariff can be effected by opposite parties only on the application of the registered consumer. Complainant has no case that the registered consumer has applied for tariff conversion prior to issuance of Ext. P1 bill. In view of the foregoing discussion and evidence available on records, we are of the considered opinion that complainant has no locus standi to challenge tariff without figuring the registered consumer as complainant in this case. It is further to be pointed out that the dispute is with reference to the appropriate tariff rate chargeable for the power consumed by the complainant's computer training centre and not that the Ext. P1 bill is inflated on account of error in the units of power consumed. The issue herein is whether the bill has been prepared at the appropriate tariff rate. The dispute is thus in the nature of a dispute about consideration payable for the power supply. It is a dispute in the realm of 'pricing' which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate upon. Admittedly, there is delay in issuing Ext. P1 bill which will definitely amount to deficiency in service, but without figuring the registered consumer in the party array, the complaint will not survive. In view of the above, complaint is not maintainable which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, 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 30th day of September 2010.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 59/2004
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - R. Gopalakrishnan
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of demand & disconnection notice dated 31.10.2003
P2 - Copy of receipt for Rs. 6,813/- issued by the opposite party.
P3 - Copy of premises meter card.
P4 - Copy of the letter addressed to 2nd opposite party by the
complainant.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - R. Radhakrishnan Nair
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Copy of the ledger showing the consumer No. 12567.
PRESIDENT
jb
