Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/99/2016

E.Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tamil nadu Electricits Board Anna Salai - Opp.Party(s)

M.Saravana Kumar

18 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  20.05.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  18.09.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL  : PRESIDENT

THIRU. D.BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc.,B.L.,  :    MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE  18^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.99/2016

 

 

E.Kumar, 54 years,

S/o.Late Elumalai,

No.14-A, Arani Rengaiyan Street,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

                                                                                           ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Chairman,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

 

2.The Executive Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – CEDE – North,

•  

Chennai – 600 021.

 

3.The Assistant Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Operation and Maintenance,

R.K.Nagar, Appasamy Street,

Old Washmenpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

4.The Junior Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Operation and Maintenance,

R.K.Nagar, Appasamy Street,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai – 600 021.

….Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 27.06.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.M.Saravanakumar, A.T.Jayaraman

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                   : R.Amernath Rao Khande &

                                                                   C.Krishnamurthy

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM,B.Sc.,B.L.,DTL.,DCL.,DL &AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay 2,25,000/- for mental sufferings caused by collecting excess amount and adopting unfair practice and deficiency in service and also to pay a Rs.2,25,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant had applied for the Electricity Service Connection with the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  After scrutinizing the complainant’s application they have demanded to remit caution deposit and it was deposited  by the complainant. The Service (Commercial) was given in the  year 2000. The Service Number is 01006019217. The complainant carried on the carpentry work at his residence and used to pay the electricity charges  at commercial rates without any default. Since he belongs to Achari Community, he made his residence as cottage industry by doing wooden items and processing the same. The electricity consumption used by the complainant for the past four years, is an average of  50 units per month and 100 units for two months. On 29.09.2014 the meter reading noted was 670 units for two months, which is highly impossible. The 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties wrongly noted down as 635 units as consumed by the complainant per month in the electricity card. The 3^rd opposite party convinced the complainant to pay the electricity charges for 670 units and promised to rectify the meter and thereafter to return the  excess amount or adjust the amount. But they have not followed up the matter inspite of several complaints given. Therefore the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is on the part of opposite parties. Again 16.04.2013, 3^rd  & 4^th opposite parties demanded Rs.1,296/-  as electricity consumption charges, but the complainant demanded to replace the old meter with  new one. At the cost of the complaint the meter replaced by a new meter on 16.04.2013. Thereafter, the 3^rd opposite party  collected a sum of Rs.481/- to 577/-  for the period of eight months. On  29.09.2014 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties once again collected Rs.5,045/- towards electricity charges for the period of two months. Therefore, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had committed serious irregularity at the time of noting down the electricity charges and also collected excess amount from the complainant. Therefore the complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay 2,25,000/- for mental sufferings caused by collecting excess amount and adopting unfair practice and deficiency in service and also to pay a Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- cost.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties denies all the allocations  except those as specifically admitted.  The service connection No.006-19-217 was effected 25.03.2009 at the premises of the complainant based on the application submitted 12.03.2009. The service connection is the commercial tariff based on the routine spot inspection carried out by the staff of TANGEDCO. During spot inspection it was confirmed that carpentry works being carried on and the applicable tariff for such carpentry work are Tariff Clause V (Commercial only), as per TNERC’s Rules. The complainant has not applied for  tariff change, the premises might have been  inspected and  the tariff is changed to the appropriate one based on the utilization. Most of the days, when assessment staff went for reading the meter, the door was under  lock condition. On 10.12.2013 the energy meter installed in the premises has been replaced Electro Static  Meter. After the replacement the complainant has utilized 60 to 126 units up to the assessment of July 2014. Since, most of the time the premises doors was under lock and the actual reading could not be recorded.  Therefore the average consumption reading was recorded and charges for recorded reading has been collected. During September 2014 the complainant came to the EB office and shouted that the meter is defective and shows the abnormal reading and then meter was rechecked by the staff and confirmed  that it was in good condition. 670 units for September 2014 might have been the accumulated consumption for assessment months from 1/2014 to 9/2014. There was increase in consumption due to higher usage from  27.09.2013 to 09/2014. The letter was sent to the complainant on 12.08.2016  to keep open the premises on 17.08.2016 at 12.00 hours so as to make the inspection and to ascertain the actual connected load and to consider the request and same has been returned as door locked and then the letter was pasted in the front door. Even then there is no response. The meter is in good working condition and no excess charge  is collected from the complainant.  Collected charges are in order according to the consumption shown in the meter and complaint is to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

2. If so, is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

04. POINT NO :1 & 2

          The contention of the complainant is that he is a carpenter, carrying on his work at his residence and the electricity charges of his residence is of commercial rates. He asserts that he belongs to Achari community and carrying on carpentry work at his residence, wherein wooden items and processing activities are carried on as a cottage industry & also states that it is carried on “Hereditary basis”. The average unit consumption per month is normally 50 units, for the past period of 4 years. On 29.09.2014, the meter reading was 670 units for the period of 2 months. The complainant reported the matter to the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties, which ended in vain. On, 16.04.2013 the opposite parties demanded Rs.1,296/-,  then the request to change the meter was made to 3 & 4 opposite parties and the meter was changed  on 16.04.2013. Again on 13.11.2013, 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties have demanded the electricity charges of Rs.1,296/-. After installation of the new meter, again 3^rd opposite party had collected Rs.481/- to 577/-. Again there was a demand of Rs.5,045/- for 2 months. Therefore the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties have acted irregularly and there is deficiency in service and if questioned by the complainant, there is a threat to disconnect the Electricity Connection by opposite parties.

          05. The usage of the electricity in the residence of the complainant is admittedly commercial in nature. It is also stated by the opposite parties that the Tariff change has not been done at the request of the complainant and it was found out at the time of inspection by the opposite parties. However, the complainant’s contention is that he is a carpenter and admittedly carrying on his work as a cottage industry and the nature of work according to him is that of wooden work and processing of the same on Heredity Basis. Even though, there is no plea directly in the complaint that he is carrying on the work for his livelihood, the stand  taken by the complainant as he belongs to Achari community and the work is carried on “Heredity Basis”, will save the usage of electricity of commercial nature is only for his livelihood. No other material is placed on record by opposite parties that the complainant is carrying on business to treat the nature of the same as commercial. Commercial tariff will not  mean that the nature of business activity is  going on in the  residence of the  complainant for  profit motive or business venture. Therefore, the complainant is considered as a consumer under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Hence the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

          06. Ex.A1 is the letter dated 13.11.2013 addressed by the complainant to 3^rd opposite party. It reveals that his petition dated 16.04.2013 for the transfer of meter has not been looked into by the opposite parties. But the complaint in para  9 reads on “The complainant particularly submits that on 16.04.2013, the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had demanded Rs.1,296/- as electricity consumption charges whereas, the complainant had demanded the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties to replace the old meter with a new one. Therefore, the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties had installed the new meter on 16.04.2013 at the complainant’s residence at his costs”.  Therefore, it is admitted by the complainant that a new meter was fixed on 16.04.2013. From this it is made clear that the request to 3^rd opposite party is fulfilled. Later to this, again on 16.10.2014, a letter in Ex.A2 was written by the complainant to review the demand of Rs.5,045/- made by 4^th opposite party. The copy of the reading is Ex.A4. Ex.B2 is filed on the side of opposite parties which indicates that status of the meter reading from the Consumer Ledger. On perusal of the said exhibit, it is noted that the above said charge relates to September 2014 for the meter reading of 670 units. It is admitted by the opposite parties that energy meter was replaced by Electro static type in place of old Electric meter on 10.12.2013. It is also pertinent to note in Ex.B2, that most of the recording days of meter reading, the door was locked. It is also pointed out on the side of the opposite parties that service connection was effected at the commercial basis and during spot inspection it was confirmed that carpentry work were carried on and the applicable Tariff for such carpentry work is TARIFF CLAUSE V (Commercial only)  and as found in TNERC’s Rules. And also submitted that the complainant has not applied for Tariff change from the date of availing service connection.

          07. It is confirmed that the meter was rechecked after the complaint by the complainant for revised bill and also confirmed by opposite parties that  the meter was running in a good condition and it has also been replied  that based on the consumption, the complainant has to pay the current consumption charges as recorded in the computer according to the meter reading. This contention is not denied by the complainant in his proof-affidavit. Moreover, from Ex.B2, it is inferred that most of the months door was locked during the EB Staff’s visit for recording the meter reading, thereby the actual recording could not be recorded, the average consumption charges for the recorded reading would have been collected. The fact is to be admitted in view of the said situations. Since the calculations are based on the previous month recording or the average consumption, it is correct to say that the accumulated consumption will be calculated as shown in the meter, when the readings are recorded subsequently.   Likewise the alleged 670 units might have also been the accumulated consumption for the assessment month from Jan to Sep 2014, due to frequent Door Lock endorsement as noted in Ex.B2.

          08. The complainant has sent a notice through his counsel on 30.10.2014 to the 4^th respondent i.e Ex.A3 and it was acknowledged by 4^th opposite party. The reply by the opposite parties said in the written version is not denied by the complainant in their proof-affidavit. After long duration only, i.e. on 20^th May 2016, this complainant is filed. However, on receipt of the notice of this Forum, on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party, there was a letter sent to the complainant on 12.08.2016 in Ex.B3, and the inspection date was fixed as 17.08.2016 and there was also a request to keep open the premises. But on that day the complainant neither kept open the premises nor turned up. The report by the said Engineer regarding the status is reflected in Ex.B3 series. The proof affidavit of the complainant is filed after filing the proof affidavit of the opposite parties. But the complainant had failed to explain regarding the receipt of notice nor the  reasons for his absence. The above discussed facts itself proves there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties & point No;2 is answered accordingly.

09. POINT NO:3

As per the discussions held above, the complainant is a Consumer, but the complainant has not proved the alleged negligence and deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18^th   day of September 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.11.2013                   Copy of Letter to Junior Engineer with enclosures

                                                    and AD Card

 

Ex.A2 dated 16.10.2014                   Representation to Junior Engineer along with

                                                    Enclosures

 

Ex.A3 dated 30.10.2014                   Copy of Notice to J.E. with AD card

 

Ex.A4 dated NIL                     Xerox copy of EB reading details

 

Ex.A5 dated         NIL                       Xerox  copy of EB Card

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Xerox  copy of EB Bill

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

Ex.B1 dated 16.04.2013                   Complainant’s letter for change of defective meter

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Copy of Ledger copy

 

Ex.B3 dated 12.08.2016                   Copy of the Letter of Asst.Exe.Engineer

                                                     Addressed to the complainant

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT