DATE OF FILING : 1.4.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.87/2011
Between
Complainant : P.R. Prasad,
Puthiyakunnel House,
Kumaramangalam P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Section 1, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Section 1, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
3. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is conducting a cool bar at Thodupuzha in a building owned by one Mr.Krishna Pillai, Illuthu Puthenpurayil and having an electrical connection in the name of the said Krishna Pillai as consumer No.13377 and he is promptly paying all the bills issued by the opposite party. In the month May, 2007, the squad of the opposite party inspected the premises and found that the connected load of the premises is more and a penal bill was issued for Rs.8,000/-. That was also paid by the complainant and for regularising the connected load of the complainant's premises as 2000 watts, an application was given by the complainant as directed by the opposite party. After that the complainant's electrical connection was regularised and the tariff of the electrical connection was also changed. After that the bills were issued for the regularised watts and the fixed charge was also changed to Rs.200/-. All the bills issued by the opposite party after that were also paid promptly by the complainant. On 9.3.2011, another bill was issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.50,933/- and the complainant was not entitled to pay another bill for the additional load found in the inspection conducted in the year 2007. So a petition is filed by the complainant on 18.3.2011 to the opposite party and the opposite party told that it would be considered, but the electrical connection of the complainant's cool bar was disconnected by the opposite party. So it is a deficiency from the part of the opposite party and this petition is filed for cancelling the hike bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.50,933/-.
(cont.....2)
- 2 -
2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the statutory remedy for filing appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer as per the Electricity Act, 2003 was not done by the complainant and directly approached this Forum and this petition will not come under the Consumer Protection Act. The connected load of the complainant's cool bar owned by Mr.Krishna Kumar under 7B tariff was 1 KW. On 31.5.2007, the section squad of the opposite party conducted an inspection and detected an unauthorised additional load of 1 KW. A site mahassar was prepared and the same was convinced to the petitioner and signed by him. The unauthorised additional load was assessed as per section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and a provisional assessment bill for Rs.7,803/- was issued with a notice and the petitioner remitted the amount on 12.8.2007 without filing any objection against the provisional assessment. It is also directed to remove the unauthorised additional load or regularise the same as per the rules and regulations of KSE Board. The petitioner has not removed the unauthorised additional load or applied to regularise the load as directed as per the rules. Hence the tariff of the consumer continued under LT 7A commercial tariff and issued bills accordingly. The regular bills were issued accordingly and omitted to recover the penal charges due to non-regularisation of the unauthorised additional load. The audit team of the Regional Audit Officer detected the omission and directed to issue additional bill to recover the penalised amount. As such the short assessment bill of Rs.50,933/- was issued to the consumer. As per the regulation 51(2) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 the penalty for unauthorised additional load is to be levied till the said unauthorised additional load is removed or regularised as per rules. Further Regulation 24(5) empowers KSEB to recover any amount undercharged from the consumer by issuing a bill. The consumer has not applied for regularisation nor submitted any supporting documents like wiring completion report and test report in the prescribed format or deposited additional cash deposit. The petitioner has given enough time to appeal/remittance and disconnected the service connection after the disconnection date mentioned in the invoice cum disconnection notice, after following all the formalities as envisaged in the regulations of KSEB. There is no deficiency from the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts. P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. An inspection was conducted by the opposite party in the month of May 2007 and unauthorised connected load was found out. So a penal bill of Rs.8,000/- was issued and it was already paid by the complainant. As per the application of the complainant, the tariff was changed and the connected load was regularised and now the complainant is paying Rs.200/- as fixed charge for 2000 watts. But a penal bill was issued on 9.3.2011 by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.50,933/- and it is marked as Ext.P1. A petition was filed by the owner of the building for changing the tariff and so it was changed as LT 7A and the connected load is changed as 2000 watts and it was regularised after 2007. That matter was informed to the opposite party as per application. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. The bills issued by the opposite party from June 2007 to December 2010 were also produced and marked as Ext.P3(series), in which the fixed charge is Rs.200/- and the amount varies from Rs.4,148/- to 11,658/-. That were also promptly paid by the complainant. Ext.P4 is the lease agreement between the complainant and the owner of the building. As per the opposite party, Mr.Krishna Kumar was having a connected load of 1 KW/hour and the tariff of the connection was
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
7B. The squad of the opposite party inspected on 31.5.2007 and a mahassar was prepared and a connected load of 1255 watts was detected on inspection. So the site mahassar prepared and the copy of the same has been given to the complainant who is conducting the cool bar there. And so a bill for an amount of Rs.7,803/- was also issued on 31.5.2007 and without any objection the complainant paid the same. After that the complainant never regularised the connected load and it was found in the audit conducted by the opposite party office and so a bill for an amount of Rs.50,933/- was issued as penal charge and Ext.R1 is the copy of the same. As per the complainant, the squad of the opposite party inspected and found out that the connected load is more than 1KW/hour and so a mahassar was prepared and a penal bill was issued on 31.5.2007. The complainant admitted the same and signed the mahassar prepared by the opposite party. The tariff of the connection was also changed from 7B to 7A and a bill was issued for an amount of Rs.8,000/- and it was also paid by the complainant. It is also admitted by the opposite party. But as per the opposite party, the complainant never regularised the tariff of the electrical connection and it was found out in the audit report and so Ext.R1 penal bill was given to the complainant. As per the application of the complainant, the 2nd opposite party was examined as PW2. PW2 admitted that the fixed charge is paying by the complainant as Rs.200/- from the inspection onwards and it is also seen from Ext.P3(series). Before the inspection conducted by the opposite party on 31.5.2007, the fixed charge was Rs.100/-. After that no inspection was conducted by the opposite party and a petition was filed by the complainant against the penal bill Ext.R1.
It is admitted by the opposite party themselves that an inspection was conducted on 31.5.2007 and a penal charge given for an amount of Rs.7,803/- and was paid by the complainant. So the tariff of the connection was also changed from 7B to 7A and fixed charge was changed from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-. As per the complainant, he has filed an application for regularising the tariff as directed by the opposite party on inspection. On filing the application for changing the tariff from 7B to 7A and the fixed charge from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-, but that matter was not at all entered into the register of the opposite party by the mistake happened to the opposite party. So the audit inspection revealed it and that is a mistake from the part of the opposite party and in order to cure the mistake happened to the opposite party, they have demanded a hike bill to the complainant alleging that the tariff regularisation has not been done. So we think that the inspection has been conducted in the year 2007 and after that the complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party and the tariff was changed and fixed charge was also changed.
As per the terms and conditions of the Electricity Supply 2005, Regulation 51(4), “in case of Low Tension consumers whose connected load does not exceed 100 KVA but who have exceeded the contracted load by 10% by adding unauthorised additional load, the procedure mentioned in clause 50(1) shall be applicable”.
The unauthorised load should be got regularised by the consumer within a period of three months on application to the Assistant Executive Engineer and after payment of additional security deposit and other charges as per rules. The regularisation shall be given effect from the date of collection of additional security deposit and other charges, if any, as per rules. The Assistant Executive Engineer shall issue proceedings to this effect. Here the opposite party never produced evidence to show that the Assistant Executive Engineer has proceeded against the complainant for changing the tariff of the connection after three months or any day after the inspection. As per the complainant, they have filed application for regularising the tariff and the tariff has been changed. So we think that the version of the complainant is more believable than the opposite parties. If any mistake has been happened in the opposite party office about the change of tariff in register of the opposite party, the
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
complainant is not liable for the same. There is no contention of the opposite party that the complainant is not paying the electricity bills as per the changed tariff or as per the changed fixed charge and that is admitted by the opposite party themselves. So issuing another penal bill in the year 2011 for the inspection conducted in the year 2007 is not at all proper. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are always taking meter reading from the complainant's premises in every month and if the complainant has not changed the tariff of the electricity as per the application, the opposite party ought to have proceeded against the complainant after 3 months. As per the terms and conditions of the Supply of Electricity 2005, the Assistant Executive Engineer shall issue proceedings to this effect. That was not done. Hence the complainant already paid the penal bill for unauthorised extension and now paying the bill in the changed tariff for the connection and the fixed charge is also changed. Ext.P3(series) shows the same. So the complainant is not entitled to pay the bill issued by the opposite party as Ext.P1. They already penalised the complainant for an amount of Rs.8,523/- on 7.6.2007, as per the copy of the demand notice produced by the opposite party dated 31.5.2007.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the Ext.P1 demand notice issued by the opposite party dated 9.3.2011 for an amount of Rs.50,933/- as consumer NO.13377 of the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2011
Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - P.R. Prasad
PW2 - N. Jagadesan.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The penal bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.50,933/-
on 9.3.2011.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the application given by the complainant dated 18.3.2011.
Ext.P3(series) - Copies of the electricity bills from June 2007 to December 2010.
Ext.P4 - The lease agreement between the complainant and the owner of the building.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the penal bill for an amount of Rs.50,933/-.
