D.o.F:22/10/11
D.o.O:19/7/12
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.272 /2011
Dated this, the 19th day of July 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.RAMADEVI.P : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
A.Sadashiva Udupa, S/oA.Anantha Udupa,
R/at Shashi Prasad House, Vasanth Mahal compound, : Complainant
Anangoor, Kasaragod KasabVillage,Kasaragod
(Adv.M.Narayana Bhat, &A.Sathyasankara Kasaragod)
1.The Asst.Executive Engineer,
Electrical Major Section, Nellikunnu
2. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Asst. Engineer,
Electrical Section, KSEB Nellikunnu,Kasaragod : Opposite parties
4. Mr.B.A.Rahiman,
S/o Abdulla, R/at Bevinje, Chengala Po, Kasaragod
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:
Complainant is a tenant of a shop room of opposite party No.4. He is running a small hotel by way of self employment and eking out his livelihood from the same. He is the beneficiary of electricity connection No.1158-6 & 1007-3 provided in the said hotel. On 8/10/11 complainant received two bills in respect of the said consumer numbers for `33576/- and `17067/-. On receiving the exorbitant bills he made enquiry with opposite parties and it was told that those bills are issued as a penalty for keeping 2 meters in a same room. The said meters were there in the shop room even before 1972 and the opposite parties failed to explain the basis of the impugned bills issued. Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
2 Opposite parties 1&2 filed joint version and 3rd opposite party filed separate version duplicating the version of opposite parties 1&2. 4th opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice. Hence opposite party No.4 had to be set exparte.
According to opposite parties 1 to 3 the bill issued to consumer No.1007 for `17067 and bill issued in consumer No.1158 for ` 33576/- are not penal bills but they are the bills issued for short assessment. Those bills are issued to the complainant since they were raised to adjust the short fall occurred to the KSE Board due to the existence of 2 meters as different connections in the same premises for same use. For the same use inside a single premise only one connection is admissible and separate connections will be given for separate premise only. The bills impugned are issued since as per the tariff structure the current charges increases when consumption increases and the complainant was supposed to remit higher current charges if all units would have been recorded in one meter instead of two meters. These short assessment bills were calculated on charging entire units of both the meters at the rate of ` 8.05/unit where as the earlier regular bills were charged @ `6.75/unit for consumer number 1007 and 7.30/unit for consumer No.1158. This difference is calculated for the period from 8/2007 to 12/2010 when this anomaly was detected. Complainant has so far made no request to remove one meter from the same premises and he has to re arrange the wiring for the dismantling one connection. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. On the side of complainant Exts.A1 to A5 marked. No documents produced from the side of opposite parties. Both sides heard . Documents perused.
4 .Exts.A1&A2 are the bills in dispute. They are totally vague with respect to the claim of the opposite parties that they are the bills for the short assessment. The billing period for claiming the arrears is also not mentioned. Hence Exts.A1 & A2 cannot be considered as the legally generated bills. Therefore they are liable to be quashed.
5. Moreover even though the statements made by the opposite parties are accepted as true and correct still the bills impugned are not legally sustainable. As per the version of opposite parties 1 to 3 the impugned bills are generated for the short assessment during the period 8/07 to 12/10 ie. For the period of 3 years and 4 months. As per Sec.56(2) of Electricity Act 2003 no sum due from any consumer, 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 license shall not cut off the supply of electricity. The opposite parties have no case that the alleged short assessment amount has been shown in the previous bills continuously as recoverable. Hence it is in violation of Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 also.
6. Most importantly the crucial question that is remained unexplained is why did the opposite parties provide two electricity connections in the same premises if it was illegal? The definite case of the complainant is that the two meters were there even before 1972. So that being the case issuing the short assessment bills after several decades alleging the existence of two meters that too without issuing any pre-notices definitely constitute deficiency in service and therefore on that ground also the bills impugned are liable to be set asided.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to cancel the bills dated 8/10/11 for `17067/- issued in consumer No.1007-3 and for `33576/- issued in consumer No.1158-6. The complainant is directed to file application for dismantling any one meter and re arrange the wiring of the hotel. Time for compliance is 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite parties can initiate steps to dismantle any one electricity connection provided in the hotel of the complainant as per appropriate penal provisions.
Exts:
A1&A2- Electricity bills
A3 series-Bill receipts
A4copy of agreement
A5-copy of receipt received by 4th OP
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
