THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM<br /> Present:<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member<br /> CC No. 258/05<br /> Monday, the 28th day of July, 2008.<br /> Petitioner :1) K. Sukumaran<br /> Proprietor,<br /> Sooraj Electroplatings,<br /> Vayaskarakunnu, Kottayam <br /> <br /> 2) K.S Lal,<br /> Hill top Garden<br /> Vennimala, Payyapadi,<br /> Kottayam.<br /> (By Adv. Muhammed Nizar N.P)<br /> Vs.<br /> Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,<br /> Vaidhythi Bhavan,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram<br /> reptd. By its Secretary.<br /> <br /> 2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,<br /> KSEB, Electrical Major Section, <br /> Kottayam.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. <br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The first petitioner is doing Electroplating job under the name and style as Sooraj Electroplating. The second petitioner is assisting the first petitioner from 1987 onwards. The petitioner states that the income from the said business is the only source of the livelihood of the petitioner. The first petitioner had erected 2 motors having capacity of 3 H.P for doing electroplating works. The opposite party had taken meter readings in every months and issued bills accordingly. Due to the use of acid in the electroplating works, the capacitor attached to the motor was damaged several times. The petitioner<br /> <br /> -2-<br /> intimated the said fact to the opposite party as per vide letter dtd: 24..3..2003 and removed the capacitor from the motor. According to the petitioner since the capacitor was removed an additional amount for the same in addition to a fixed charge and energy charge were levied to the petitioner. Petitioner states that the bill dtd: 17..10..2005 for an amount of Rs. 6739/- was issued to the petitioner claiming amounts in different head. The petitioner enquired about the bill issued to him by the opposite party but no valid explanation was given to him. The petitioner explained the facts with regard to the additional charge for not using the capacitor was paid by him. Opposite party directed to give a complaint to the opposite party for considering the matter on 5..11..2005 the petitioner had given complaint to the second opposite party. But no favourable action as taken by the second opposite party. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party of issuing such a bill for an amount of Rs. 6,739/- is with without any basis and said act of issuing bill amounts to clear deficiency of service. So the petitioner prays for a declaration that petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 6739/-. He also prays for a direction to the opposite party to not to disconnect the electric connection to the petitioner's premises. He also prays for Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as cost of proceedings. <br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts. According to the opposite party the petitioner is not a consumer and is not running the business under selfemployment. Opposite party contented that as per the records the total connected load of the premises is 10 KW. They admitted that due to the use of acid in the electroplating work the<br /> capacitors provided were damaged frequently. As per the prevailing rules in KSEB every industrial consumers having motor load should connect sufficient rated capacitors for improving the power factor. They contented that they are legally empowered to penalise the consumer who are not willing to install the capacitors. As per the office record of the opposite parties no capacitor installed in the premises of the petitioner was faulty for the few years. 20% extra is to be charged for non instalation of the capacitors as per rules. But due to human error some omission in charging in 20% extra was happened in past several months. The Assistant Accounts Officer, Regional Audit <br /> -3-<br /> Office , Kottayam during his inspection directed the opposite parties to issue short assessment bill and thus a short asessment bill for an amount Rs. 6739/- was issued to the petitioner. According to the opposite party some errors were also included in the short assessment bill for Rs. 6793/-. So according to them after correcting the errors an amount of Rs. 5589/- is due to the opposite party. So the opposite party submitted that petitioner is legally liable for an amount of Rs. 5598/- as short assessment for the non installation of the capacitor so the petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1 <br /> The petitioner produced demand cum disconnection notice dtd: 17..10..2005, said document is marked as Ext. A3. From Ext. A3 it can be seen that the demand is for an amount which is first due from 9/01. Opposite party produced the photo copy of the meter reading register of the petitioner. Said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be inferred that the bill is issued for a period starting from 9/01 to 10/03. As per section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 no some due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such some become first due. Unless such some has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charge or electricity. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the arrear is for a period from 9/01 to 10/03 the bill is dated 17..10..2005. So, the claim of the opposite party is after a period of 2 years from the date when such some became first due. So we are of the opinion that as per section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. The opposite party cannot claim any amount from the petitioner. So, the act of the opposite party and issuing bills after a period of 2 years is clear deficiency of service so the point No. 1 is found is accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is allowed. The petition is entitled to <br /> -4-<br /> relief sought for. In the result the bill dtd: 17..10..2005 for an amount of Rs. 6739/- is cancelled. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered.<br /> <br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2008.