THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.329/2008 Thursday, the 29th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Shyla Abdul Khader, Vazhemadathil House, Mariathuruth P.O Kottayam. (Adv. Avaneesh V.M) Vs. Opposite party : 1) The Secretary, KSE Board, Pattom P.O Thiruvananthapuram. 2) The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottayam – C Kottayam P.O O R D E R Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant was conducting a concern by name Ban Box Dry Cleaners in a rental building owned by one P.A Nahas. As a beneficiary the complainant was using the electricity connection taken by the owner. After March 2007, the complainant was laid up for a long time due to illness and she could not remit the current charge in time. Subsequently the opposite party dis connected the electric connection without complying the formalities. On 5..12..2008, an order was served by the second opposite party to the representative of the complainant. In that order it is endorsed that an application was filed by V.K. Abdulkhadar to grant installment facility in remitting the arrear charges of Rs. 38,099/- and interest Rs. 9938/- and it is also endorsed that sanction is given to remit the amount in installment. Before that no bills were issued except monthly charges as -2- for the knowledge of the complainant. As far as the complainant is concerned no application is filed by any one before the second opposite party. The complainant’s husband died on 15..12..2005 and according to the complainant the opposite parties have played a foul play. Even if the husband received the bill containing the above amount, it cannot be realized now because it will be barred by limitation under the Electricity Act. The complainant alleged that the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service on the part of them. Hence the complainant filed the complaint praying the following relieves (a) to direct the opposite parties to withdraw the bill amount based in the order No. RBI/Inst/08-09/155 dt: 1..12..2008 for Rs. 48,037/-. (b) to direct the opposite parties to reconnect the electricity (c) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation (d) to pay the cost of the proceedings. The second opposite party filed version for himself and for and on behalf of the first opposite party. This version came with the following main contentions. i) The sanctioned tariff to this disputed electric connection is LT - VII A commercial. As the electric connection is given for commercial purpose the complaint is not maintainable. ii) As per the office records the electric connection bearing consumer No. 1113 under Elelctrical Section, Kottayam Central is given to one Mr. V.K Abdul Khader, Band Box Dry Cleaners. From records it is clear that, this 3 phase service connection with 9 KW connected load was sanctioned on 1..4..1957 and the sanctioned tariff was LT IV. Industrial. iii) The copy of meter reading register for the period 6/02 to 3/06 shows that the tariff of the electric connection bearing consumer No. 113 was changed to commercial w.e.f. 1/04 as the consumer started a jewellery shop in the same premises in the name and style Vazhemadathil Jewellers. But due to oversight the application of industrial tariff was continued up to 7/04 instead of commercial tariff. From 8/04 onwards the bills were issued under commercial rate and the bills were remitted accordingly without any protest. iv) The wrong application of industrial tariff for the period 01/04 to 7/04 was detected by the Regional Audit Officer, Kottayam during the inspection of office records and vide his direction L.No. RAO 1/KTM/Inspn/06-07/89/20..6..2007, the second opposite party has directed to issue short assessment bill for compensating the loss due to the wrong application of tariff. Based on the instruction of the R.A.O, Kottayam a short assessment bill amounting to Rs. 21,893/- was issued to the consumer on 1..8,..2007. But this bill is not remitted by the consumer. In addition to this the normal current bills from 7/07 to 11/08 amounting to Rs. 16,206/- were also not remitted. Under the above circumstance the above service connection was dismantled on 6..11..2008 after issuing necessary statutory notice. v) The statement of the complainant that she had not filed any application before the second opposite party requesting installment facility is absolutely false. As the complainant is the beneficiary of the electric connection, the opposite parties have no reason for a foul play in giving relaxation to her. The complainant had made a foul play by suppressing the death of the registered consumer. vi) There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties From 1/04 onwards the complainant’s premises is functioning as a Jewellery shop in the name and style “Vazhemadathil Jewellers” and the tariff was changed to LT VII A commercial. Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost to them. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party? ii) Relief and cost? Point No. 1 Heard both sides and perused the documents. The opposite parties contented that the tariff sanctioned to consumer No. 1113 on 1..4..1957 was LT IV Industrial. The opposite parties further contented that the tariff to Consumer No. 1113 was changed to LT-VII A commercial with effect from 1/04 as the consumer started a Jewellery shop in the same premises. The complainant has not disputed or denied the above said contentions. The opposite parties produced the copy of meter reading register of consumer No. 1113 for the period 6/02 to 3/06 and they were marked as Exhibit B1 series. On perusing Exhibit B1 it is seen that the tariff was changed to LT - VII A in the twelfth month of 2003. From exhibit B1 it is also found that even though the tariff was changed to LT VII - A, the application of industrial tariff was continued up to 7/2004 instead of commercial tariff. The complainant has no case that the “Ban Box Dry -5- Cleaners was not changed to Vazhemadathil Jewellers”. Further more, the complainant has no dispute with regard to the change of tariff from LT IV to LT - VII A with effect from 1/04. From the facts and circumstances it is understood that the consumer was using electricity in LT – VII A tariff during the disputed period 1/04 to 7/04. The opposite parties produced the original application Dtd: 28..11..2008 filed by N.K Abdulkhader and it is marked as exhibit B3. In exhibit B3 application it is requested that the arrears pending may be accepted in ten installments and as per the said request five installments were granted. The copy of the order issued by the opposite parties granting five installments for the arrear current charges is also produced and marked as exhibit B4. The complainant alleged that no such application as mentioned above was submitted by her. But nothing is placed as evidence to prove the above said allegation of the complainant. After perusing the entire material placed on record we find that the complainant had used electricity under LT - VII A tariff from 1/04 to 7/04 but due to oversight the said period was charged only under LT - IV tariff. In our view there is no illegality in the issuance of the short assessment bill for the period 1/04 to 7/04 and therefore we cannot attribute any deficiency in service against the opposite parties. The counsel for the complainant argued that the disputed bill cannot be realized as it is barred by limitation under the Electricity Act. Where as the opposite parties cited the judgment of WPC No. 90/2009, Sundar Das Vs. KSEB in which the Hon’ble High Court -6- held that “it is upon issuance of a bill that amount becomes due.” Keeping reliance on the aforesaid decision we are of the opinion that the complainant is liable to remit the entire arrears with interest as per rules. Point No. 2 In view of the findings in point No. 1 the complaint is dismissed. Taking a lenient view, we direct the complainant to remit the entire arrears in 3 equal monthly installments . Considering the facts and circumstances no cost and compensation is ordered. Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the petitioner: Ext. A1: Order Dtd: 1..12..2008 vide No. RBI/Inst/08-09/155 Documents of the opposite parties: Ext. B1to B1(d)Copies of meter reading register Ext. B2: Short assessment bill Dtd: 1..8..2007 Ext. B3: Original letter issued by Abdulkhader Dtd: 28..11..2008 Ext. B4: The copy of order granting installments Dtd: 1..12..2008. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/5 cs.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
