BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 122/2006 Filed on 18.04.2006

Dated : 15.11.2010

Complainant:

Suresh. S, S/o Sreedharan, Lekshmi Bhavan, Ozhukupara, Madathara P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-691 541.

(By adv. Yahia Khan. A)

Opposite parties :

1. Secretary, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Punalur.

3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kadakkal.

4. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chithara.

(By adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 31.08.2010, the Forum on 15.11.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer under Electrical Section, Chithara bearing consumer No. 21717(New No. 6344), that the connection was effected on 08.06.2001 in tariff VII A, that at the time of installation charge was fixed at Rs. 400/-, thereafter fixed charge increased to Rs. 480/-, that again fixed charge raised from Rs. 480/- to Rs,. 800/-. Complainant was remitting the electrical charges regularly. On 10.07.2004 opposite party issued a bill wherein fixed charge increased from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1,600/-. On 06.03.2006 a notice was issued by opposite party to the complainant stating that as per the audit report complainant has remitted Rs. 2,400/- less as current charge for the period from 01/04 to 06/04. Complainant was demanded to pay the amount before 27^th March 2006 failure of which he was informed that electric connection to the service station will be disconnected, that again on 27.03.2006 opposite party issued a fresh notice stating that complainant has remitted Rs. 11,440/- less as current charge for the period from 06/01 to 05/04 and demanding to pay the amount before 17^th April 2006 failing which it was informed that the electric connection will be disconnected. It is also stated in the new notice that the prior notice dated 06.03.2006 will automatically stand cancelled in the light of the fresh notice. It is submitted by the complainant that the fresh notice is issued without any basis and amount demanded as dues is highly exorbitant and complainant is not bound to pay any amount on the basis of the said notice. It is further submitted that the demand is barred by limitation. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties not to collect any amount from the complainant on the basis of notice dated 27.03.2006 and to direct opposite parties to pay compensation and costs.

Opposite parties filed version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complaint is barred by Sec. 145 of the Electricity Act, that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and connection to the premises was effected on 08.06.2001 in LT VII A tariff for running a vehicle service station, that it is a three phase service connection having connected load of 7234 Watts, that from the date of connection, complainant was remitting the monthly fixed charge for single phase service connection based on the wrong electricity bill for the last 3 years upto 05/04, that during inspection of KSEB's Audit Wing detected the error happened in the fixed charge collected for the last 3 years. Fixed charge was revised from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1,600/- with effect from 06/04 and complainant was convinced about it. After that a final arrear notice was issued on 27.03.2006 to realise the short assessment in the fixed charge for the period from 06/01 to 05/04. There is no limitation to recover the above said amount. Opposite parties have not demanded any penal charge or interest from the complainant. All actions taken by opposite parties are legal and as per rules and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is bound to pay the amount as per the notice dated 27.03.2006?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

    

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Ext. P1 to P9. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In rebuttal opposite party has not filed affidavit. Ext. D1 was marked on the part of the opposite parties.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties under LT VII A. The very case of the complainant is that the connection was taken for running a service station for the purpose of earning his livelihood, that he was remitting electrical charges regularly since installation. Opposite parties have revised fixed charge from Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1,600/-. It has been the case of the complainant that on 06.03.2006 opposite parties issued a notice to realise short assessment in fixed charge Rs. 2,400/- for the period from 01/04 to 06/04 only. Thereafter opposite parties issued another notice dated 27.03.2006 for an amount of Rs. 11,440/- for the period from 06/01 to 05/04. The short assessment was indicated by KSEB's audit wing. Ext. P1 to P4 are the bills issued by opposite parties from 14.07.2001 to 10.07.2004. Ext. P5 is a notice dated 06.03.2006 issued by opposite parties to the complainant claiming Rs. 2,400/- towards short assessment. On perusal of Ext. P5 it is seen that the said notice was issued as per the report of the auditor. Ext. P6 is the bill dated 20.03.2006. Ext. P7 is the letter from the complainant to the 4^th opposite party complaining him of the demand of Rs. 2,400/- towards short assessment. It is complained by Ext. P7 that opposite parties refused to accept bimonthly bill amount since he has not remitted the short assessment amount claimed as per Ext. P5. Ext. P9 is the notice dated 27.03.2006 claiming short assessment amount of Rs. 11,440/- from 06/01 to 05/04. It is to be noted that complainant has not committed any default in payment of bimonthly bill issued by opposite parties. There is no case on the part of the opposite parties that complainant has unauthorizedly used electricity exceeding the sanctioned load. It is to be pointed out that complainant has started the service station in 2001, since then, he has been regularly remitting fixed charges along with current charges which was fixed by opposite parties. It is further to be noted that the rates were enhanced by opposite parties from time to time. The very stand of the opposite party is that during inspection that Audit Wing detected the error happened in fixed charges collected for the last 3 years upto 05/04. The amount is claimed for the period 06/01 to 05/04. Evidently there is delay in raising bill towards short assessment. Moreover opposite party has never adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit to substantiate their contention in the version nor examined any witness to establish their stand. Now after a lapse of 5 years opposite party could not recourse the basis of audit report to burden the complainant by issuing additional notice towards short assessment. It is argued by the complainant that opposite parties have served notice dated 27.03.2006 after a long period of 5 years from the date of connection as such the demand by opposite parties is barred by limitation as per Sec. 56(2) of the Electricity Act. According to complainant even if there was less remittance it is not the fault of the complainant since he was remitting electric charges on the basis of spot bills issued by opposite parties and it was the fault of the opposite parties and they were solely responsible for it and complainant cannot be held liable for the fault committed by them. Though opposite parties had revised fixed charges on many occasions they never detected any error in the bill. The onus of proving the error is on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties failed to do so. In view of the foregoing discussions and evidence available on records we are of the opinion that taking recourse on the basis of the audit report opposite party cannot compel the complainant to pay the amount as detected by the Audit Wing after a lapse of more than 5 years. The demand of the opposite parties after a lapse of long period of about 5 years is not sustainable and contrary to the provisions under Sec. 56(2) of the Electricity Act. In view of the above we find complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the notice dated 27.03.2006.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. Notice dated 27.03.2006 issued by opposite parties is cancelled. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case and both parties shall bear and suffer their 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 15^th day of November 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 122/2006

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Suresh. S

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original bill No. C 848076

P2 - Original Bill No. F 857274

P3 - Original Bill No. B 909104

P4 - Original Bill No. 662.

P5 - Copy of notice dated 06.03.2006

P6 - Original Bill No. 27.

P7 - Copy of letter dated 25.03.2006 from complainant.

P8 - Receipt No. 8167

P9 - Copy of notice dated 27.03.2006

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Copy of agreement.

PRESIDENT

jb