IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 05th day of June, 2020
Filed on 18.09.2006
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.200/2006
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Smt. Ammini Prasad 1. The Secretary
S/o Joseph Thomas K.S.E.B.
Puthenpurackal Vydyuthi Bhavanam
Komana, Ambalappuzha, Thiruvananthapuram
Alappuzha
(Adv. Joseph George) 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
K.S.E.B, Chengannur
3. The Asst. Engineer
K.S.E.B, Chengannur
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
Complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-
Complainant is the proprietrix of M/s Pournamy Hotel which is functioning from Nov.1996. It is doing restaurant and lodging business. Till 26/8/2004 it had 5 KSEB meters having Nos. 4933,4934,5616,11085 and 11160. On 26/8/2004 as per direction of KSEB Chengannur single meter was installed. Meter reading was taken regularly and the complainant used to pay bill without any default.
During Dec.2005 there was some fault in the electric line and a line man visited the house and the electric connection was restored. After one hour electric meter was burned. The matter was informed at the Electricity office and new electronic meter was installed without collecting any amount from her. After installation of the electronic meter electricity charges shoot up. It was informed at the KSEB office. During June she contacted some politicians and as per their intervention KSEB did some changes in the electric meter and the electricity charges were reduced. Electricity charges were reduced to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- per month.
While so it was informed that after installing the electronic meter electricity charges were increased and so she was directed to pay more amount of Rs. 1,88,550/-. Even at the period when there were 5 meters maximum bill amount was Rs.80,000/-. Complainant has no liability to pay the excess amount. The electronic meter was sealed by the officials of the KSEB. Complainant is not liable to pay the excess amount and hence direction may be issued to the KSEB not to disconnect the meter and compensation may be awarded.
2. Opposite parties filed joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
Complainant is running a 3 star hotel for commercial purpose employing several persons and hence she will not come under the definition of Consumer under Section 2(d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The West Bengal State Dispute Redressal Commission in case of W.B.S.E.B Vs. Subhas Barik
(2004 CPJ page No.26) and W.B.S.E.B Vs. Suresh Debnath (2005 CPJ Page No.112) held that , if the connection is commercial the complaint is not maintainable before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
The complainant had availed an electric connection under commercial tariff bearing consumer no.4933 for conducting Hotel Pournami having 3 star classification. The connected load of the premises is 96KW and it comprises Air Conditioner units and other equipments having heavy loads. The facilities required for a hotel having 3 star classifications can be learned from the Tourism Department. It is true that 5 connections had existed in the premises. Since it was against rules complaint was notified to modify the wiring. There upon the 4 connections where dismantled. On 1.9.2004 a new meter was installed which can provide the total load. Invoices were issued under LT VII(a) tariff.
On 15/12/2005 the single meter installed on 1/9/2004 was found fully burned and actual cause of meter being burnt could not ascertained. Though over load was suspected the consumer was allowed the benefit of doubt and the meter was replaced free of cost. The meter was burnt beyond the possibilities at any sort of testing.
The complainant had agreed that the consumption and consequent energy charges have increased after the meter was changed. The single meter installed in the premises of the complainant got burnt and hence was replaced by CT type meter on 15/12/2005 with initial reading of 2 units. The CT’s installed for the meter were of ratio 200/5 resulting in a multiplication
factor of 40. In other words the reading recorded in the meter is to be multiplied with 40 to get the total consumption for the month or part thereof. On receiving an oral complaint from the consumer this meter was replaced with another CT meter on 31/12/2005 with initial reading of 1 unit. The invoices are issued after consumption recorded in the meter multiplied by the MF. These opposite parties have not made any alteration to the meter which was installed on 31/12/2005.
After installation of the single meter on 1/9/2004 the meter was burnt on 15/12/2005 and the meter was replaced free of cost. The assessment of Rs. 1,88,551/- issued to the consumer is for the period of 6 months from 7/2005 to 12/2005 and based on the Audit Enquiry No.13/6 of the Audit team of the Accountant General. The finding of the Audit team was that the meter was sluggish and recording very low. The above period is charged at the average consumption for the subsequent 3 months after meter change. Hence the assessment was as per rule. The total reading of the 5 meters installed in the premises prior to 9/12/2004 shows that the consumption was comparable to the present consumption. It is also pertinent to note that there is a sudden drop in the consumption in may 2005. This indicates that the meter became sluggish during this period. The burnt meter was changed on 15/12/2005 with CT’s of ratio 200/5(MF=40) and subsequently changed on 31/12/2005 with CT’s ratio 100/5(MF=20) based on the complaint of the consumer. The average daily consumption comes to 187.5 units. Even after changing this meter the average daily consumption was about 157.66 units. The slight variation is due to the fact that the first average is for a span of 16 days and the other 30 days.
It is true that the meter is kept sealed and that the Sub Engineer used to visit the premises every month to record the reading of the meter. The monthly invoices were issued to the consumer corresponding to the consumption recorded in the meter. At this point of time the sudden drop in the consumption was not noticed. The fact that meter had been recording sluggishly was brought out during the detailed audit of accounts during 8/2006. The complainant never requested for any refund of amount for a period of time. The consumer is well aware that the meter had been recording low and she had some allegations to conceal this fact.
The assessment invoice is valid and is in accordance with the rules and regulations of the KSEB. The consumer is liable to pay the amount. The amount claimed is for the actual consumption based on the average consumption of the present meter. The complainant has no case against the working of this meter. No penalties are included and the amount already remitted towards the energy charges has been deducted. The invoice amount is issued for the balance amount only. The meter has recorded sluggishly from the consumption of May 2005. However the assessment was limited to the period of 6 months as per rules. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points are raised for consideration:-
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to an order restraining the opposite parties from realizing the amount?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order from disconnecting the electric connection?
4. Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence PW1 and Ext.A1 series from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B7 on side of the opposite parties.
4. Point No.1
PW1 is the Power of attorney holder of the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext. A1 series. Rw1 is the second opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 to B7 series.
This case has got a chequred carrier. After taking evidence the complaint was dismissed on 30/1/2009. Appeal no. 191/17 was filed before the KSCDRC and as per judgment dated 27/3/2017 the case was remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter no fresh evidence was adduced and both parties were heard.
The case advanced by PW1, the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant is that the complainant is conducting a 3 star hotel by name Pournamy Hotel at Chengannur. Initially the hotel had 5 electric meters and later as per direction of the KSEB a single meter was installed. During December 2005 there was some defect in the connection and it was rectified by employee of the KSEB. After one month the electronic meter was found burned. Thereafter it was replaced. After that a bill was issued for an amount of Rs. 1,88,551/- claiming that the meter was not functioning properly. The complaint is filed for getting an order to restrain the opposite parties from realizing the amount and disconnection. On the other hand opposite party filed a version and gave evidence conducting that the meter was not running properly. An audit was conducted from the officer of the Accountant General and as per report dated 22/9/2006 it was noticed that complainant is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 1,88,551/- for which a new bill was issued.
The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties argued that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. It was pointed out that as per the admitted case complainant is conducting a hotel by name ‘Pournamy Hotel’ and the meter was installed for the said hotel. The tarrif rate was LT VII(a). Since the connection was taken for commercial purpose complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The consumer is defined in Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. when reads as follows.
[hires or avails of ] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires of avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment , when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]. So from the above definition it is crystal clear that a person who avails or services for any commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of a consumer. In this context I am also enlightened by the decision of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Kolkatta reported in 2004 CPJ 26(WBSEB Vs. Subhas Barik) and 2005 CPJ 112 (WBSEB Vs. Suresh Debnath). In both the decisions it was held that if the connection is taken for commercial purpose the Forum has no jurisdiction. The Consumer Protection Act was amended and the new provision was introduced with effect from 15/3/2003. In this case the date of occurrence is after 2005 and so amended provision is applicable.
There is ample evidence to show that the connection was taken for commercial purpose. In the complaint itself it is stated that the complainant is proprietrix of Mrs. Pournamy Hotel”. While giving evidence before court RW1 stated that it is 3 star hotel approved by the Tourism Department. Hence it is clear that connection was taken for commercial purpose and so this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This point is found against the complainant.
5. Point No.2 and 3
While considering Point no.1 it was found that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the connection was taken for commercial purpose. In the circumstances these points does not arise for consideration.
6. Points. No. 4
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- to the opposite parties.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 05th day of June , 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sholly.P.R.(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.S Pradeep Kumar(Witness)
Ext.A1Series - Electricity bill issued for the Complainant from 1-1-2007 to
2008 June
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Asok Kumar.V(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.4933(12/2001 to 5/2005)
Ext.B2 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.4933(5/2005)
Ext.B3 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.4933(12/2001 to 9/2004)
Ext.B4 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.5616(12/2001 to1/2004)
Ext.B5 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.11085(12/2001 to 1/2004)
Ext.B6 - Copy of Reading Register Consumer No.11160(12/2001 to 9/2004)
Ext.B7 - Comparison Statement of Meter Reading from Jan.2002 till date.
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
