BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 86/2001 Filed on 17/02/2001 Dated: 31..12..2009 Complainant: Sreekumar. V.Y., N.V.Bunglow, Valiyavazhi, Manchancodu – P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. S. Hariprasad)
Opposite parties:
Kerala State Electricity Board, Represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Electrical Major Section, Vellarada – P.O., Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. Shaji Chellappan)
This O.P having been heard on 30..11..2009, the Forum on 31..12..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is the Proprietor of the Oil and Rice mill named as Aleena Oil and Rice Mill, that the said mill started under the self employment scheme for his livelihood, that the said mill operated with a 10 HP electric motor with a connected load of 8 KW since 1989, that in the year 1997 complainant wanted to install an additional 20 HP motor in the said premises, that a request was made to Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Vellarada on 19/8/1996 to enhance the connected load from 8 KW to 23 KW, that the Assistant Engineer concerned accepted the application vide order No.DB4/96/97/VLDA/118 dated 17/9/1996, that thereafter opposite parties instructed the complainant to deposit the Additional Cash Deposit (ACD) and the complainant deposited the same in the month of January 1997, but the opposite party did not install the new energy meter with a specification of 23 KW and because of the non-availability of the meter, complainant's meter was installed during January 1999, and that complainant could operate the newly installed 20 HP motor only from January 1999 onwards. It is submitted that opposite parties are responsible for the loss incurred to the complainant due to the non-operation of the Oil Mill after remitting necessary ACD on 1/1/1997, that from the date of installation of the electric supply the complainant remitted the current charge without any due, that on 10/10/2000, 2nd opposite party issued a registered letter to the complainant demanding to remit Rs. 8,283/- towards short collection of monthly fixed charge, that in the said demand notice it is stated that enhanced connected load from 8 KW to 23 KW is effected from 1/1/1997, but actually enhanced connected load was supplied only from 1/99, that the claim is without any basis, wholly arbitrary and illegal and against principles of natural justice, that on 28/11/2000, 2nd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant stating that he could disconnect the electric supply if complainant does not remit the regular charge of Rs. 2,156/- and monthly fixed charge of Rs. 8,283/-. Opposite parties deliberately disconnected the electric supply on 8/12/2000, that the complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electric Section, who allowed the complainant to remit the disputed amount with protest in installments, that complainant remitted Rs. 5,585/- on 15/12/2000 (Rs.2,800/- as the 1st installment of fixed charge, Rs.2,186/- as regular current charge and Rs. 590/- as 5th installment ACD and Rs. 5/- as the disconnection fee). Opposite parties did not take any steps to provide the reconnection, that eventhough the complainant acted in accordance with the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, that the complainant filed a complaint before Lok Ayukta and opposite parties re-connected the supply on 20/1/2001. Complainant could not operate the mill for 44 days because of the irresponsible act of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint to declare that the opposite parties are not entitled to claim and recover an amount of Rs. 8,283/- and Rs. 805/- vide bill dated December 2000 and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with cost.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complainant is a regular defaulter of current charges, that the energy meter installed to the premises of the complainant had sufficient capacity for catering to the enhanced load at the time of receipt of Additional Cash Deposit, that complainant has increased the connected load of his service connection on 1/1/1997, that by oversight necessary monthly charges in respect of this increase in connected load as per the contractual terms was not realised, that this omission was noted by the Audit Wing of the Accountant General and accordingly a demand for Rs.8,283/- was raised and issued to the complainant, it was after complying with the statutory provisions, his supply was disconnected, that the Deputy Chief Engineer granted installment facility to the complainant and accordingly he has remitted the 1st installment and supply was restored immediately on 22/12/2000. As far as opposite parties are concerned whether the complainant has installed the machinery or not is immaterial, that only thing that matters is the completion of wiring, test report and its regularisation by paying Additional Cash Deposit, as such the opposite parties are justified in demanding the impugned bill. Opposite partis have not committed any deficiency in service. None of the reliefs sought against them are admissible. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the opposite parties vide Invoice No.16728 dated 10/10/2000 and Bill No.90440? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost. If so, at what amount?
4. In support of the claim, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P16 were marked. Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite parties and Ext. D1 was marked. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit.
5. Points (i) to (iii) : Admittedly on 19/8/1996 complainant has applied for enhancing the connected load from 8KW to 23KW and the same was accepted by the opposite parties vide Order No.DBA/96-97/VLDA/118 dated 17/9/1996. It has been the case of the complainant that after the necessary inspection and other formalities, complainant was instructed by the Assistant Engineer to deposit the ACD and the complainant deposited ACD in the month of January, 1997 itself. It has also been the case of the complainant that he could not operate the newly installed 20HP motor till January 1999, due to non installation of new electric meter by the opposite parties, and that from the date of installation (from January 1999) onwards, complainant remitted the relevant current charge. Submission by the complainant is that on 10/10/2000 opposite parties issued a registered letter to him demanding Rs.8,283/- towards short collection of monthly fixed charge, against which he approached this Forum vide O.P. No. 634/2000, an urgent notice was issued to opposite parties, before accepting the said notice, opposite parties disconnected the electric supply to the complainant's mill, thereby he could not operate the mill from 8/12/2000, that thereafter, the Deputy Chief Engineer, an application filed by the complainant, allowed him to remit the disputed amount with protest in installments, and that even after the remittance of the amount by the complainant as directed by the Deputy Chief Engineer, opposite parties did not take any steps to provide the reconnection to the mill of the complainant. On 20/1/2001 opposite parties reconnected the supply to complainant's mill as per the direction of the Lok Ayukta. Ext. P1 is the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 17/2/1999 for Rs. 1,945/-, issued by the Office of the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the demand cum disconnection notice dated 15/12/1998 for Rs. 1,254/- issued by opposite parties' office. Ext. P3 is the Demand cum disconnection notice dated 26/8/1998 for Rs.969/-. Ext. P4 is the letter dated 17/9/1996 from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant informing him of the enhancement of power to the extent of 20 HP subject to conditions. As per condition 7 in Ext. P4, the load will be connected only after installing a static capacitor of capacity 20 KVAR with ISI mark and ELCB. Ext. P5 is the letter dated 10/10/2000 from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant informing him to remit the short assessment of fixed charge for the period from 1/97 to 12/98 to the tune of Rs. 8,283/-. Ext. P6 is the adjustment invoice dated 10/10/2000. Ext. P7 is the notice dated 28/11/2000 from the 2nd opposite party to complainant stating that if regular current charge of Rs. 2,156/-, and adjustment invoice amount of Rs.8,283/- with interest thereon, is not remitted within 7 days from the said notice seen, the electricity connection to consumer No.6359 will be disconnected without further notice. Ext. P8 is the letter dated 10/11/2000 from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant demanding him to remit the adjustment invoice. Ext. P9 is the copy of the advocate notice dated 18/11/2000 to 2nd opposite party. Ext. P10 is the order dated 15/12/2000 of the Deputy Chief Engineer, allowing the complainant to remit Rs.2,800/- as the first installment and the balance amount in 6 equal monthly installments. It is stated in Ext. P10 that surcharge, reconnection fee etc., if any, shall be remitted along with the first installment. Reconnection needs be effected only on remitting the first installment. Ext. P11 is the copy of the D.D dated 15/12/2000 for Rs. 5,585/- in the name Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB., Major Section, Vellarada. Ext. P12 are consignor copies of the courier consignment note addressed to AEE., KSEB., Major Section, Vellarada. Ext. P13 is the proof of delivery of courier consignments to consignee. Exts. P14 & P15 are copies of the letters addressed to Deputy Chief Engineer by the complainant. Ext. P16 is the copy of the order dated 1/8/2001 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta in complaint No.700 of 2000. In the said order in complaint No. 700 of 2000, the allegation raised by the complainant was that inspite of remitting the required amount, on 8/12/2000 reconnection was not granted till 23/12/2000 by the opposite parties, that there was long delay of about 35 days in effecting reconnection, thereby complainant has allegedly suffered huge loss as he was not in a position to run the bill and that he has claimed compensation for the loss he has suffered apart from praying for action to be taken against respondents. As regards, compensation, Lok Ayukta directed the complainant to have recourse to other remedies available to him under Law in facts and circumstances of the complaint. While, as regards the prayer for action to be taken against the opposite parties, the Deputy Chief Engineer was directed to conduct enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action, if opposite parties were found to be guilty of any of the acts alleged to have been committed by them. Opposite parties resisted the complainant by submitting that the energy meter installed to the premises of the complainant had sufficient capacity for catering to the enhanced load hence the same was not changed at the time of receipt of additional cash deposit, the same was denied by the complainant in his cross examination. The very case of the complainant is that though he remitted ACD in the month of January 1997, opposite partied fixed the additional meter for enhanced load to 23KW only on 1st week of January 1999, thereby he could not run the motor to 20 HP on enhanced load till 1/99. While opposite parties issued the bills from the date of ACD, 1/97 to 1/99, without power supply to 20 HP motor. In his cross examination also, complainant has deposed that he could run the motor only from 1/99, after the new meter on enhanced load was filled by the opposite parties in the premises on 1/99. Opposite parties made a suggestion to complainant in cross examination that it was due to financial stringency of the complainant he could not fit the new motor till 1/99. Complainant denied it – opposite parties did not furnish any document either to show the date of installation of the new meter on enhanced load in the premises of the complainant or to show enhanced load used by the complainant during the said period from 1/97 to 12/98. The initial onus of proving that complainant has used additional load during the disputed period, would rest on the opposite parties. Opposite parties have failed to establish the same by cogent and clinching evidence. It is pertinent to note that due to non-payment of adjustment bill for Rs. 8,283 (Ext. P6) and regular current charge, opposite parties disconnected the connection to consumer No. 6359, that as per Ext. P11 complainant is seen remitted Rs.5,585/- to opposite parties pursuant to Ext. P10 order of the Deputy Chief Engineer. Even after the compliance of the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer by the complainant, reconnection was not effected immediately by the 2nd opposite party, against which Deputy Chief Engineer was directed by the Lok Ayukta to conduct enquiry against the Engineer concerned and accordingly enquiry was conducted against the Engineer concerned and found to be guilty in departmental action and punished by awarding a punishment of censure to that effect action taken report was filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer before the Lok Ayukta vide its order dated 9/12/2002 in IA 90/2002 in complaint No. 700/2000, (which is on the records). In view of the above, and in the light of evidence available on records we find the issue of adjustment invoice dated 10/10/2000 for Rs. 8,283/- without power consumption to enhance 23HP motor and subsequent disconnection of power supply to the said consumer was unilateral and against facts. The action of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The adjustment invoice (Ext. P6) dated 10/10/2000 for Rs. 8,283/- issued by the opposite parties is hereby cancelled. The amount if any remitted by the complainant towards the said adjustment invoice shall be returned or adjusted in the future bill. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Both parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
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 31st day of December, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
CCCccccCO.P.No:86/2001 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : Sreekumar. V.Y II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Original demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 17/2/1999 for Rs. 1,945/-. P2 : Original demand cum disconnection notice dated 15/12/1998 for Rs. 1,254/-. P3 : " " 26/8/99 for Rs.969/-. P4 : " letter dated 17/9/1996 from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. P5 : " letter dated 10/10/2000 from the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. P6 : " adjustment invoice dated 10/10/2000 P7 : " notice dated 28/11/2000 from the 2nd opp. Party to complainant. P8 : Letter dated 10/11/2000 from the 2nd opp. Party to the complainant. P9 : Advocate notice dated 18/11/2000 to 2nd opp. Party. P10 : Order dated 15/12/2000 of the Deputy Chief Engineer. P11 : Photocopy of the D.D dated 15/12/2000 for Rs.5,585/-. P12 : Consignor copies of the courier consignment note. P13 : Courier consignment note dated 15/12/2000. P14 : Photocopy of letter dated 14/12/2000. P15 : " letter addressed to opp. Parties. P16 : Order dated 1/8/2001 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta in complaint No. 700/2000.
III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents :
D1 : Photocopy of letter dated 17/10/2000
PRESIDENT.
|
