By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to withdraw the demand bills dated 16.01.2012 issued by the opposite party No.1 and to cancel the Bill and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite party No.1 vide consumer No.7473 which is a domestic connection. The said connection was disconnected by the opposite party No.1 alleging unauthorized additional Bill date 27.08.2003 for a sum of Rs.27,000/-. The complainant had challenged the bill and filed C.C. No.59/2006 before the Honorable Forum which was disposed off by the Forum in favour of complainant and the electricity connection was reinstated as per the direction of the Honorable Forum in E.P.67/2011 in pursuance of the Revision Petition No.52/2011 of the Honorable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Prior to reinstate the connection, the opposite party No.1 had issued a Bill dated 16.01.2012 along with a notice to the complainant demanding to pay an amount of Rs.8581/- being the arrears towards regular minimum Bill from 2003 December onwards stating that the connection will be reinstated only after the bill amount is paid. Since the Execution Petition No.67/2011 was pending before the Forum, the complainant has produced the copy of the Bill and Notice before the Forum. Reinstation was effected on 19.01.2012. Immediately after reinstating the connection, the opposite party No.1 send another Bill for Rs.7,787/- on 16.01.2012 and with a direction to the complainant to pay the amount on or before 30.01.2012 if not to face disconnection. The opposite party is harassing and threatening the complainant in retaliation of the legal steps. The opposite party had no legal validity and right to proceed against the complainant for an arrear from 2003 onwards. Further though the electricity connection was dismantled as early as in the year 2004 itself, the opposite party is claiming unauthorized amount from the complainant in the Head of Regular Minimum Bill and meter rent. The above act is nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, Notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite parties contented that the consumer No.7473 is given to the complainant under LT 1A Tariff. It is true that the above consumer number was served with a electricity bill for an amount of Rs.7,787/- being the minimum charges for the period of disconnection. The consumer is bound by law to pay the minimum charges for the period of disconnection for getting reconnection to the disconnected connection. Earlier bill for Rs.8,581/- was withdrawn and a new bill for Rs.7,787/- was issued on there was calculation error in the former bill. Though the connection was not dismantled on the litigations were pending. The amount paid as per the Order in C.C. 59/2006 is towards the Penal Bill and on the Order in Revisions 52/2011 was to give reconnection to the complainant. Opposite party further contented that the complainant is bound to pay the minimum charges for the period of disconnection. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and the complainant is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. The opposite party is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 is marked. Ext.A1 is the first bill for Rs.8,581/- dated 16.01.2012. Ext.A2 is the corrected Bill for Rs.7,787/- dated 16.01.2012. Ext.A3 is the dismantling Notice. Ext.B1 is the copy of application submitted by the complainant before the opposite party demanding reconnection. On perusal of these documents, the Forum found that Ext.A1 is the demand and disconnection notice issued by opposite party to the complainant for a sum of Rs.8,581/- and the corrected notice is Ext.A2 for a sum of Rs.7,787/-. On verification of Ext.A2, it is seen that the amount of Rs.7,787/- is calculated during the period of 01/2003 to 01/2012 ie for a period of 9 years. The complainant had not used electricity from 27.08.2003 to19.01.2012. As per section 56(1) of Electricity Act 2003, Section 56(2), it is stated that “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no such due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall no cut off the supply of electricity”.
6. On going through the Ext.A2 document it is seen that the opposite party demanded Fixed charge of Rs.3,000/-, Duty charge of Rs.250/- and metre charge of Rs.1,000/-. The opposite party stated that the opposite party did not dismantle the connection and did not demand the fixed charge and metre charge from 2003 onwards is due to the reason that the case is pending before the Court. So the Forum found that there is justification for the non-demand of fixed charge and metre charge for 9 years. As per Electricity Act Section 45, the opposite party can demand fixed charge and metre charge from the complainant during the period of existence of electricity connection. But as per Ext.A2 document , it is seen that the opposite party had demanded Rs.3,537/- from the complainant under the head S/C(Surcharge). As per the Order of Honorable State Commission in RP 52/11, the complainant had remitted the entire arrears of energy charges. So the opposite party cannot further claim surcharge(S/C) from the complainant. There is no jurisdiction for claiming that amount. So the Forum found that claiming surcharge of Rs.3,537/- from the complainant is a deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
7. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Ext.A2 demand Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant is hereby stands canceled. The opposite party can demand only Fixed Charge of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and duty charge of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two Hundred and Fifty Only) and Metre Charge of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) from the complainant by issuing a new Demand Notice. The opposite party cannot claim any additional charges from the complainant. The complainant have to remit the above amounts as and when further demand from opposite party is received. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of September 2014.
Date of Filing:28.01.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Mariyamma. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Pathrose. Assistant Engineer, KSEB.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Demand and Disconnection Notice of Rs.8,581/-.
A2. Demand and Disconnection Notice of Rs.7,787/-.
A3. Dismantling Notice.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
B1. Copy of Application of complainant. Dt:16.08.2010.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
