DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th day of November 2010

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                                                                                                                               Date of filing: 23/02/2010

C.C.No.27/2010

V. Narayanankutty Nair

S/o. Late Narayanan Nair

Valiya Parambath House

Pavukonam Post

Via Vaniyamkulam

Ottappalam

Palakkad - 679 522                                                                      -                             Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1. The Assistant Engineer

K S E B

Electrical Section

Kothakurssi

(Party in person)

2. The Secretary

K S E B

Vydhyudhi Bhavan

Thiruvananthapuram

3. The Agricultural Officer

Krishi Bhavan

Ananganadi                                                                               -                                Opposite parties

(Adv.Vinod.K.Kayanat)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President

Case of the complainant

Complainant is having an agricultural electricity connection with 1^st opposite party vide consumer No. 4822. Complainant is also having a domestic connection with 1^st opposite party vide consumer No.2400. Complainant for the purpose of renovating his house has taken connection for constructive purpose by paying additional amount in consumer No.2400. On 06/01/2010 while the work of laying the granite was in progress, suddenly

supply went off and the granite piece got struck in the cutter machine. In order to make free the machine complainant used the agricultural electricity connection which was 16 meters away from his house for about 10 minutes. The KSEB officials who made a visit to the premises at 4 PM has noted this extra connection. They have not noted any appliances working with this connection. Supply was disconnected by the opposite parties. Complainant was served with a penal bill for Rs.1,978/- which was reduced in appeal to Rs.614/-. Complainant paid the said amount on 03/02/2010, but the opposite parties has not so far restored the electricity connection. Complainant was asked to produce a new certificate for reconnection purpose from the Anaganadi Krishi Bhavan, but the Ananganadi Krishi Bhavan failed to issue the same. Complainant prays for an order to reinstate electricity connection and also prays for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for loss of agricultural crops.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending the following.

Opposite parties admit that the complainant comes under the exempted category of agricultural consumer. It is also admitted that complainant has sought permission to use electricity for constructive purpose from Consumer No.2400, but no such permission was given for Consumer No.4822 which is an agricultural connection. Complainant has misused the said agricultural connection and hence penal bill was issued and supply disconnected. Opposite party has prepared the site mahazar from the site itself, but complainant declined to put his signature in the mahazar. Opposite parties are empowered to disconnect the supply vide Regulation 25 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. Complainant refused to receive the disconnection notice that on payment of penal bill along with OYEC charges connection will be reinstated. The notice was affixed on the meter board. A bill amount of Rs.1978 was issued. Which was later reduced to Rs.614/-. Complainant paid only the penal bill. OYEC charges and reconnection charges were not paid. According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, since the complainant has misused the agricultural connection it can be reinstated only under a new report from the 3^rd opposite party. Reconnection could not be effected because of the non payment of the charges by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

3^rd opposite party also filed version admitting that complainant comes under the exempted category of agricultural consumers. Since the complainant has misused the agricultural connection for constructive purpose 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has disconnected the supply. Subsequently complainant has approached 3^rd opposite party requesting to issue a fresh certificate to be produced before opposite parties for reconnection. According to 3^rd opposite party since already a certificate has been issued to his agricultural land and the complainant is availing free agricultural electricity based on the said certificate, it is not possible to issue the same again. 3^rd opposite party submits that she is an unnecessary party to the complaint and prays for compensatory cost.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the forum, an IA was filed by the complainant for reinstating connection which was allowed vide order dated 30/04/2010. Complainant has filed an additional affidavit stating 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has complied the order, but subsequent bills are issued to the complainant for payment. It is submitted by the complainant that till 06/01/2010 3^rd opposite party used to pay the bills. Opposite party on the other hand contented that in the latest list of exempted consumers received from 3^rd opposite party also does not include complainant’s name and hence complainant has to pay the bill amount.

The evidence led by the complainant consists of the affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A16. Opposite party 1 & 2 has filed affidavit and Exhibit B1 to Exhibit B8 marked. 3^rd opposite party has not filed any affidavit.

Now the question that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issue No.1

The definite case of the complainant is that he has misused the agricultural electricity connection in an emergency situation for which 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties has

issued a penal bill. Even though bill amount was paid, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties has not reinstated connection.

The case of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is that complainant is bound to pay penal charges along with OYEC charges and reconnection charges. Complainant has paid only the penal bill and hence connection could not be restored.

Further as the complainant has misused the agricultural electricity connection, 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties has changed the agricultural tariff and this was informed to 3^rd opposite party. 1^st Opposite party has requested the complainant to produce certificate from 3^rd opposite party, if he is entitled for further exemption.

So the question to be considered is whether a consumer is bound to pay OYEC charges and reconnection charges in addition to the penal bill amount for reinstating connection and whether a fresh certificate from 3^rd opposite party to show that complainant comes under the exempted category of agricultural consumer is necessary.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties has relied on Exhibit B6 which is the Circular No. Vig BVI3808/2005/2610/01:08:2005 issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board to prove that complainant is bound to pay OYEC charges.

Perusing the document, we do not find any statement to the effect that reconnection will be effected only on payment of OYEC charges. Instead the said circular has specifically directed the officials of the Board to proceed as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 in case of misuse. It is only stated that in case of such misuse an amount equivalent to OYEC amount may be realized from the consumer. 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has issued a penal bill as per the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and no further amount is demanded as per the bill. It is admitted that complainant has paid the amount. In such a situation opposite parties cannot be justified in causing delay in providing reconnection.

Regulation 38(1) (d) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 provides the situation in which Board is authorized to disconnect supply. It provides that

The Board will not disconnect supply to a consumer except in the following condition.

The Board reasonably believes that the consumer has contravened the provisions of the Code/Act/Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, which entitle the Board to disconnect the supply.

Further Regulation 39 (2) & (3) – Reconnection of supply provides as under.

2. If the omission and commission, which lead to disconnection under clause 38(1)(b) to 38 (1) (i), has been remedied then reconnection will be given immediately.

3. The Board will charge a fee approved by the Commission and notified from time to time, to reconnect the consumer.

So it is seen that 1^st opposite party is bound to provide reconnection on payment of bill and is entitled to levy a fee approved by the commission for reconnection. So it is clear that complainant is bound to pay only penal amount along with reconnection charges.

The act of changing the agricultural tariff in the subsequent bills and demand of fresh certificate from the 3^rd opposite party is not supported by any rules. No evidence is produced on this behalf also.

3^rd opposite party though not filed any affidavit has admitted in the version that complainant is an exempted consumer. At the final stage of hearing 1^st opposite party has produced a list of exempted consumers sent by 3^rd opposite party to 1^st opposite party office. We feel that this act of 3^rd opposite party may be result of the intimation served by 1^st opposite party regarding the change of agricultural tariff.

On going through the rival submissions of both parties we are of the view that complainant has done a wrong for which fine has been levied. Further, harassment of the complainant demanding OYEC charges, fresh certificate etc for reconnection is definitely deficiency in service on their part especially when there is no such rules for the same. 3^rd opposite party also has no right to delete the name of an eligible agricultural consumer for exemption. No sufficient explanation is provided by 3^rd opposite party for the said act also. Hence we attribute deficiency in service on the part of all opposite parties.

In the result complaint allowed and we order the following.

1. 3^rd opposite party shall issue a list of exempted consumers including the name of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party within 1 month from the date of order and shall be liable to pay the bill amount also.

2. Order in IA.88/2010 is made absolute.

3. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

Pronounced in the open court on the 27^th day of November, 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Copy of letter dated 02/02/89

2. Ext. A2 - Copy of letter from Assistant Engineer and provisional bill dated 14/01/10

3. Ext A3 - Copy of letter dated 19/01/10

4. Ext. A4 (1) – Copy of final bill dated 18/02/2010

5. Ext. A4 (2) - Copy of receipt from Kerala State Electricity Board

6. Ext A5 series - Copy of bill from KSEB dated 08/01/10, - 7 Nos

7. Ext. A6 – Copy of letter dated 25/07/2009.

8. Ext. A7 – Copy of KSEB bill dated 09/03/10

9. Ext. A8 – Copy of certificate of Sri. Sunilkumar

10. Ext. A9 -series – Copy of purchase bills.

11. Ext. A10 – Copy of bills.

12. Ext. A11 – Copy of reminder dated 15/02/2010

13. Ext. A12 - Copy of bill dated 09/03/2010

14. Ext. A13 – Copy of bill dated 09/07/2010

15. Ext. A14 – Copy of letter dated 13/07/2010

16. Ext. A15 - Copy of letter dated 20/07/10

17. Ext. A16 - Copy of letter under Certificate of Posting

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1. Ext. B1 – Copy of Site Mahazar dated 06/01/10

2. Ext. B2 - Copy of notice dated 06/01/10

3. Ext B3 series- Copy of letter from Assistant Engineer & bill of KSEB

4. Ext. B4 – Copy of final bill dated 02/02/2010

5. Ext. B5 - Copy of receipt from Kerala State Electricity Board

6. Ext B6 - Copy of Circular dated 01/08/05

7. Ext. B7– Copy of bill dtd.09/09/2010

8. Ext. B8 – Copy of updated list of farmers exempted from payment of tariff

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings