IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 22nd day of September, 2021.
Filed on 30-10-2019
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.283/2019
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.Ajmal H Assistant Engineer
S/o Haneef Electrical Section
Kaniyamparambu Muhamma- 688527
Lajanathu Ward (Adv.Sri.Jayan C Das)
Alappuzha- 688001
(Adv.Sri.S.Sulfikar)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
Complainant is the owner of a house situated in Mannancherry panchayath and from 2018 onwards he is having electric connection issued from the opposite party as consumer No.1155190020558. The connection was taken under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category and Rs.250/- was collected from him. He was paying current charge regularly @Rs.400/- - Rs.500/-. The connection was granted after inspecting the house and verifying the ration card issued under the BPL category. Complainant has given the house on rent and he is residing at Alappuzha.
2. While so on 24.10.19 at about 4’O clock employees of the opposite party visited his house and disconnected the electric connection. Though he contacted the office of the opposite party he could not get satisfactory reply. On enquiry it was revealed that his connection is not coming under BPL category and he has to deposit an amount of Rs.22,039/- to restore the connection. Accordingly he paid the amount and reconnection was done. Complainant has not received any notice and the amount was collected from him illegally. After disconnection only it was informed that his category was changed from BPL and so he had to pay the said amount.
3. The arbitrary and illegal act of the opposite party caused monitory loss and mental agony to the complainant and hence the complaint is filed for realizing the amount collected from him and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
4. Opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
At the time of electrification scheme at Alappuzha District on 07.03.18 complainant paid an amount of Rs.50/- as application fee and filed application showing that he is coming under Below Poverty Line. Accordingly on 14.05.18 after depositing Rs.250/- as cash deposit electric connection was given as consumer No.20558. However on 10.05.2019 an audit was done by the Regional Audit Officer and found that at the time of giving connection the connected load was 1563 watts. As per the rules of KSEB connections only up to 1000 watts are entitled for the benefit of BPL. Consumers who are having connected load morethan 1000 watts are required to pay ECSC (Estimate required for Service Connection). Accordingly complainant was asked to pay Rs.22,039/- being the ECSC amount to retain the connection. On 03.08.19 line man attached to the opposite party visited the house of the complainant to issue short assessment bill under Rule 134 of Electricity Supply Code 2014. However complainant was not available at the house and the tenant was residing there. It was informed that complainant was residing at Alappuzha. He could not be contacted over phone. Since the tenant refused to accept the bill it was affixed at the house. Inspite of expiry of 55 days from the date of notices since the amount was not paid, the line was disconnected. On the next day it was restored when the amount was paid.
5. From the complainant it is revealed that complainant had rented out the house and is residing at Alappuzha. It is an indication that complainant is not coming under the BPL category. As per Rule 134 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 if it is found that if a consumer is given short assessment bill opposite party is entitled to realize the same by issuing another bill. Thus notice issued under Rule 134 is legally sustainable. The averment that notice was not issued to the consumer is false. On 03.08.19 line man attached to the opposite party visited the house and since the tenant refused to accept the notice it was affixed. It was also informed to the complainant over phone. Since only bill amount was collected complainant has not sustained any loss. The short assessment bill is sustainable and complainant is liable to pay the amount. Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
6. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.22,039/- along with interest as claimed?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony as prayed for?
- Reliefs and costs?
7. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of opposite party.
Point No.1 to 3:-
8. PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1.
9. RW1 is the 1st opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 and B2.
10. RW2 is a line man attached to the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. Muhamma section for the last 3 years. He is familiar with the house of the complainant which is coming under the jurisdiction of this office. As per the direction of opposite party on 03.08.19 he visited the house of the complainant to give the short assessment bill. Since nobody was available he affixed the notice and it is written in the notice.
11. PW1, complainant is a consumer of opposite party M/s. KSEB Ltd, Muhamma Electrical Section. He was given a house connection during 2018 under the BPL category collecting an amount of Rs.250/-. He was paying electricity charge at the rate of Rs.400/- -Rs. 500/-. At the time of issuing connection proper inspection was conducted by the opposite party and was satisfied that complainant belongs to BPL category. However on 24/10/2019 at about 4’O clock in the evening employees of the opposite party disconnected the electric connection. On enquiry at the office it was revealed that he does not belongs to BPL category and so he has to pay an amount of Rs.22,039/- to restore the connection. Accordingly he deposited the said amount and the connection was restored. The contention of complainant is that the disconnection was effected without issuing any notice illegally and amount was collected arbitrarily. Only at a later stage he came to know that he does not belongs to BPL category. Hence the complaint is filed for claiming the amount collected by him and for Rs.10,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties filed a version mainly contenting that on 7/3/2018 Rs.50/- was collected as application fee and on 14/5/2018 Rs. 250/- was collected as deposit and connection was granted as consumer No.20558. However on 10/5/2019 as per the audit conducted by the Regional Audit Officer it was found that the connected load of complainant was 1563 watts and only consumers having connected load up to 1000 watts are eligible BPL benefits. Hence complainant had to pay Rs. 22,039/- to continue the electric connection being the ECSC charges. On 3/8/2019 when the lineman visited the house to issue short assessment bill as per Rule 134 of the Electricity supply code 2014 the house was locked. It was found that the house was given on rent and hence the notice was affixed. Since the amount was not paid after about 55 days the electricity was disconnected. On the next day the amount was paid and connection was restored. Hence according to them there is no illegality from the part of KSEB. There is no deficiency of service and hence complainant is not entitled to claim any amount. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked. 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked. The line man who affixed the notice was examined as RW2.
12. Admittedly PW1 is a consumer of Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. At the time of issuing connection he was under the category of BPL and so the connection was granted collecting only Rs. 250/- as deposit. As per the norms of KSEB Ltd consumers having connected load only upto 1000watts comes under BPL category. According to RW1 the opposite party the connected load of PW1 was more than that and so he had to pay charges as per the ECSC. Inspite of serving of notice by affixture since the amount was not paid disconnection was affected. It appears that PW1 is under the impression that all consumers having a ration card under BPL category are entitled for electric connection at the BPL scheme. But according to RW1 it is not the criteria. Consumers having connected load only upto 1000 watts will come under the BPL category of KSEB Ltd and consumers having more connected loads than 1000 watts comes under the APL category.
13. The relevant provision applicable is Rule 134 of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2014 which reads as follows:-
Under charged bills and over charged bills:- “ If the licensee establishes either by review or otherwise, that it has undercharged the consumer, the licensee may recover the amount so undercharged from the consumer by issuing a bill and in such cases at least thirty days shall be given to the consumer for making payment of the bill.”
14. Here in this case Ext.B2 is the copy of Audit Report with respect to PW1 having consumer No 20558. From Ext.B2 it is seen that an amount of Rs. 18,520/- is to be collected from PW1. Ext.B1 is the noticed issued to PW1. It shows that an amount of Rs. 22,039/- is due from complainant ( ECSC short Rs.18520 + Rs.3519 SGST + CGST). As contented by RW1 and in the version on 10/5/2019 Regional Audit Officer conducted an audit and found that the connected load of PW1 was 1563 watts whereas BPL category are entitled only to 1000 watts. During cross examination PW1 admitted that the connected load of his house is more than 1500 watts. Hence PW1 had to pay Rs. 22,039/- being the ECSC short and SGST and CGST.
15. PW1 has got an allegation that without giving notice electricity was disconnected. Ext.B1 is a notice dated. 3/8/2019 from which it is revealed that the due date of payment is on or before 30/8/2019 and the last date of payment before disconnection is 30/8/2019. RW2 is the lineman who was deputed to serve the notice. He deposed that on 3/8/2019 at 10’o clock he visited the house of PW1 but it was found locked. As per the direction of superintendent the notice was affixed and the copy is Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 there is an endorsement of RW2 that nobody was present hence it was affixed. The notice was affixed at the meter board were the consumer number is exhibited. So RW2 had no difficulty in identifying the house. So the evidence of RW2 coupled with the endorsement in Ext.B1 will show that the notice was served by affixture since the house was locked. From Rule 134 it is seen that consumer had to be given 30 days notice for making the payment before disconnection. From Ext.B1 it is gathered that the notice is dated 3/8/2019 and the due date of payment is shown as 30/8/2019. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party pointed out that even though there is 3 days deficit in Ext.B1 notice, disconnection was effected on 24/10/2019 ie, after about 55 days. So it can be seen that no harm was caused PW1 though there is a deficit of 3 days in Ext.B1 notice.
16. There is yet another hurdle in the case.
Consumer is defined u/s 2(d) (1) &(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Sec. 2(d) (2) reads as follows:-
“ hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
[Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment;]
17. Here in this case admittedly PW1 is not residing in the house which is in question. During cross examination PW1 admitted that he is residing at Thathampally and the house in question is at Tharamoodu which he was given on rent for Rs.3000/-. So it is crystal clear that PW1 is not residing in the said house and since he has rented on the house he cannot be considered as a consumer as definition u/s 2(d) (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence in the light of the above discussion it is crystal clear that there was no deficiency of service from the part of this opposite party and they are legally entitled to collect the amount as per Rule 134 of the Electricity Supply code, 2014. Since there is no deficiency of service complainant is not entitled for any compensation. These points are found against the complainant.
18. Point No.4:-
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of September, 2021.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ajmal(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Ration Card.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Fizal (witness)
RW2 - Shibu(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Short Assessment Bill , ES- Muhamma Dtd. 3/8/2019
Ext.B2 - Copy of Audit Report
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
