DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 4th day of June 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 27/12/2011
(C.C.No.202/2011)
Gokulraj C
Sreeroopa,
Chandranagar,
Palakkad – 678 007 - Complainant
(Party In Person)
V/s
1. Asst.Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Marutharode,
Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Reena)
2.Executive Engineer,
K.S.E.B. Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Reena)
3.Secretary,
K.S.E.B. Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram
(By Adv.T.Reena) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant availed the electric connection from the opposite parties bearing consumer no.02569 for domestic use. The complainant is a pensioner and he was not a defaulter from paying the electricity bill. The opposite parties had not demanded additional security deposit to issue the notice. But the opposite parties mentioned the additional amount of Rs.1318/- in the bill on the month of February. The complainant has failed to deposit the amount. Thereafter the opposite parties disconnected the electricity connection of complainant on 22/2/2011 without issuing prior notice. So the electrical equipments and computer of the complainant’s house damaged. The complainant informed the incident to 1st opposite party’s office. But they were not taken any action and not reinstated the electricity. On 26/2/2011 the complainant paid the bill amount and deposit amount. Then only the opposite parties reinstated the electricity connection. The complainant demanded the opposite parties to rectify the electric meter on several times. But the opposite parties not cured the non working of the meter. The opposite parties collected additional amount of Rs.4,685/- for extra charges. In the bill dated 17/3/09 bill No.61572 additional energy charge noted was Rs.1626.97/-. But in the bill the use of energy was Rs.981.13/- On 13/1/2009 the opposite party demanded Rs.1361.80/ as additional energy charge. Ordinarily in home bill additional energy charge not accepted. The following statements shown to the additional energy charge accepted by the opposite parties from the complainant.
On 16/11/2010 Rs. 27.63
16/09/2010 Rs.107.50
17/07/2010 Rs.122.50
15/05/2010 Rs. 82.50
18/05/2009 Rs.693.17
13/03/2009 Rs.1626.97
13/01/2009 Rs.1361.80
13/11/2008 Rs.554.54
15/09/2008 Rs.109.13
Total Rs.4685.73
Round off Rs.4685.00
The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to give Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and refund the amount of Rs.4,685/-.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The electric connection bearing consumer number 2569 is issued to the complainant for domestic use with an approved connected load of 2840 watts and the date of connection was 29/9/1988. It is incorrect to state that the complainant never defaulted payment of regular electricity bills due to the opposite parties. The complainant is a regular defaulter. Only after the power supply is disconnected, the complainant remitted the current charge. It is incorrect to say that no notice was issued to the complainant demanding additional security deposit. As per the Kerala Supply Code Clause 13, KSEB has to keep with it, an amount equivalent to three months current charges as security deposit in case of all bimonthly billed consumers. The complainant is a bimonthly billed consumer. The adequacy of the security deposit has to be reviewed every financial year in the first quarter based upon the electricity bills of the preceding financial year. If the security deposit is found to be inadequate, notice has to be issued to the consumer and sufficient additional security deposit to be collected. Accordingly since the security deposit of the complainant was found to be inadequate a notice was issued to the complainant on 25/5/2010 to remit Rs.1318/- as additional deposit within one month i.e. 24/6/2010. All consumers needed to remit such additional security deposit were served with notices and all of them except the complainant remitted the same. When the complainant failed to remit the additional security deposit even after lapse of many months, this amount was shown as arrear in the regular monthly bill of January 2011. The date before which the complainant needed to remit the bill amount for avoiding disconnection was 16/2/2011 shown in the bill. The complainant failed to remit any amount towards the bill in time. After waiting for 5 more days the power supply to the complainant was disconnected on 22/2/11. The complainant remitted the regular current bill and the ACD bill only on 26/2/2011 and the power supply reconnected. If the equipments failed on 22/2/11 due to the disconnection, the same equipments ought to have failed on the earlier 14 occasions also, when the power supply of the complainant was disconnected for defaulting payments. The complainant has no such complaint. It is incorrect to state that the electric meter of the complainant has not been working for many years. It is also incorrect to state that the complainant complained to the opposite parties regarding non functioning of the meter. During January 2010 the meter stopped working. Immediately upon noticing the defect the meter was changed on 8/1/10. The monthly quota for domestic category was fixed as 200 units. Since the billing frequency is bimonthly 400 units was fixed as bimonthly quota. If the units consumed in any subsequent bimonth is less than 400 units, the bill is calculated on the basis of prevailing rates. Only fuel surcharge is levied additionally. For consumption above 400 units bimonthly, apart from billing on the basis of prevailing rates for 400 units plus fuel surcharge, all additional units over 400 units are charged at the higher rates fixed by the commission on every month. The quota was later raised as 600 units bimonthly by the commission.
On 18/8/2008 the commission promulgated another order by which thermal surcharge was imposed on all consumers. All domestic consumers consuming less than 80 units per month were exempted from thermal surcharge. For all domestic consumers consuming more than 80 units per month, 50 paise per unit thermal surcharge for total consumption was imposed. On 5/4/2010 the commission issued another order on fuel price adjustment charges on all consumers. A fuel surcharge of 25 paise per unit in addition to normal charges was imposed on all domestic consumers consuming more than 20 units per month and a connected load of less than 500 watts. The complainant has raised objection on 5 bills from 15/9/2008 to 18/5/2009 and in 4 bills from 15/5/2010 to 16/11/2010. Not even once the complainant never expressed any doubt or objection with the opposite parties against the bills. The opposite parties have been issuing correct bills to the complainant based on correct meter readings and directives issued by the commission from time to time. Correct and proper notice has been issued to the complainant as per law regarding additional security deposit and ample time has been allowed to the complainant for remitting the same. The complainant has intentionally concealed facts regarding the receipt of notice dated 25/5/2010. Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavits and documents. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B8 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
Admittedly the complainant is a consumer bearing consumer No.2569 for domestic use. According to opposite parties the complainant is a regular defaulter and the details of payments from July 2008 to November 2011 is produced and marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B8 shows that dates of disputed bills, units, and fuel surcharges. The complainant stated that the dates mentioned in Ext.B8, the opposite parties collected additional amount of Rs.4685/-. The opposite parties collected the additional bill for fuel surcharge and quota excess as per the order of Kerala State Regulatory Commission marked as Ext.B5 and Ext.B5(a). In Ext.B6 the commission promulgated another order by which thermal surcharge was imposed on all consumers. According to the opposite parties the order of Regulatory Commission published in the website of the commission and given wide publicity through newspapers and other media on that date itself. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. Ext.B7 shows a fuel surcharge of 25 paise per unit in addition to normal charges was imposed on all domestic consumers consuming more than 20 units per month.
In Ext.A1 the opposite parties demanded Rs.2350/- as the total electricity amount. But the complainant has not filed any objection to the opposite parties. In Ext.B2 dated 25/5/2010 the opposite parties demanded Rs.1318/- as additional cash deposit. According to the complainant Ext.B2 was not given. The opposite parties have not produced evidence to show that Ext.B2 notice sent to the complainant. According to opposite parties all orders were published through news papers and other media on that date itself.
The complainant has not produced evidence to show that his electric equipments damaged due to the disconnection of power supply on 22/2/2011. In Ext.B4 the meter reading of the complainant for the period from 17/3/2008 to 20/1/2012 shows that which was working properly, stopped working during January 2010 and on 10/1/2010 the reading was 81. In Ext.A5 the complainant stated that the meter is defaulted for the last 2 ½ years. But the complainant has not produced evidence to show the default of meter. Ext.B5, B5(a), B6 and B7 shows that the opposite parties demanded the additional bill amount as per the order of Kerala State Regulatory Commission. In Ext.A1 the opposite parties given notice to the complainant for an amount of Rs.2350/- and mentioned the last date of payment was 16/2/2011. In Ext.A2 the complainant has paid the electricity bill amount on 26/2/2011. The opposite parties stated that after waiting for 5 more days the power supply to the complainant was disconnected on 22/2/2011. After remitting the bill amount on 26/2/2011 the power supply was reconnected by the opposite parties.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant miserably failed to prove his case. In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of June 2012.
Seena H
President
Preetha G Nair
Member
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Bill for Rs.2350/- dated 23/1/2011 issued by opposite party
Ext.A2 – Receipt for Rs.1062/- dated 26/2/11 issued by opposite party
Ext.A3 – Receipt for Rs.1318/- dated 26/2/11 issued by opposite party
Ext.A4 –Letter dated 18/3/11 sent to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A5 – Letter dated 4/2/08 sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Ext.A6- Letter dated 16/7 /08 sent by the complainant to the opposite party
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – Table showing dates of regular bill, date before which payment has to
be made for avoiding disconnection and actual date of payment for
the period July 2008 to Nov 2011
Ext.B2 – Notice issued to Consumer No.2569 dated 25/5/10 by the opposite
party
Ext.B3 - Bill No.189996 dtd.25/1/11 for Rs.2350/-
Ext.B4 – Photocopy of Meter Reading Register of Consumer No.2569
Ext.B5 – Photocopy of order in OP No.4/2008 of Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B5(a) - Photocopy of order in Petition No.17/2010 of Kerala State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B6 - Photocopy of order in TP No.54/2008 of Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B7 - Photocopy of order in Petition No.14/2010 of Kerala State Electricity
Regulatory Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
Ext.B8 –Table showing dates of disputed bills, units , fuel surcharge, quota
excess, normal bill and total bill
Cost Allowed
No cost allowed.
