IN  THE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  KOLLAM

            Dated this the  8^th day of August 2018

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

       Sri. M.Praveen Kumar,Bsc, LL.B ,Member

       CC.No.190/16

Shyam Kumar                                             :         Complainant

The Secretary

Janatha Kudivella Suchitwa  Samiti

Kovilmukku, Perumpuzha P.O, Kollam-691504

V/s

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer     :         Opposite parties

          Kerala State Electricity Board

          Veliyam, Kollam-691501

2. The Assistant Engineer

         Kerala State Electricity Board

         Perumpuzha Section Office

         Perumpuzha P.O

         Kollam-691504.

ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , President

          This  is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

The complainant is the Secretary of the Janantha Drinking Water Suchithwa Samiti at Kovilmukku.  The complaint has been filed in the capacity of the secretary of the said samiti  as authorised by the  Executive committee held on 1/07/16.  The said samiti is a consumer of the KSEB having consumer No.9339 and electricity connection has been given from the KSEB Perumpuzha section office.  The electricity has been supplied under  Tariff LT-1A  category

2

and has been charged @ Rs.2 per unit.  The said samiti has been paying electricity charges without any default from the date of taking connection.  However on 25.06.16 a written bill dated 31.5.16 without containing any seal or signature of any other authorities of KSEB directing the complainant to pay  Rs.14654/- on or before 1/7/16 or else the electricity connection given to the samiti will be disconnected. The complainant has been regularly paying the bill  amount  on  the  basis  of  consumption  without any default.  The complainant has also produced the photocopy of the complaint obtained from the 2^nd opposite party showing that the said samiti has been regularly paying the bill amount.  The complainant samiti has not made any default as demanded in the  bill dated 31/05/16.  However it was revealed that without the knowledge or consent of the  complainant  samiti  the  opposite  parties have changed the Tariff LT-1A  to LT VI E   and thereafter electricity charge has been more than double of the earlier charge.  The disputed bill has been issued without any basis and with a malafied intention to cause unlawful  loss to the complainant samiti and also to make unlawful gain to the opposite parties.  If the complainant samiti is forced to pay the above bill it will adversely affect the members of the samiti who are ordinary people residing at rural area   and would also affect the working of the samiti.  The above bill caused much harassment and mental agony to the complainant and also other 170 family members who are the members and beneficiaries of the said samiti.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party  and the complainant and other members of the said samiti would come under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act.  In the circumstance complainant prays to set aside the above disputed bill and also award compensation  to the tune of Rs.25000/- to the complainant and also award costs of the proceedings.

3

The opposite party No.1&2 filed a joint version by raising the following contentions.

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 

The complaint is a bill dispute in respect of the electric bill issued by the licensee. The Electricity Act 2003 itself provides sufficient redressal mechanism.  Hence the  consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.  KSEB Ltd, is a company owned by the government which is a necessary party in the case.  But not arried as a party.  Hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of parties. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd has issued bill as per tariff order dated 09.09.15 with effect from 05.05.15 onwards.  The tariff rate is only Rs.2.20/unit. On review of the  billing the following irregularities were noticed in the billing for the months from 5/2013 to 3/2014.

1. In meter faulty case as per regulation 125(1) of Kerala Electricity supply code 2014 the average shall be taken just preceding 6 months average, it comes to 2590 units ie. 2186+2744+2840

                                                                           3

but billed only 594 units and 593 units in 5/2013 and 7/2013 respectively.

2. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission Tariff Order dated 09.09.2013 page 11 and 12 note 1 para 2 reads as follows.

       “ The total group consumption shall be divided by the number of beneficiary households to estimate the average consumption per household  and

bill for individual house hold shall be prepared of the average consumption per household applying domestic tariff applicable to consumption above 40 units.

          Kerala State electricity Board Ltd is a licensee for distribution of electricity within the Kerala State and hence assessment can be made as per the existing tariff order of the Kerala State electricity Regulatory Commission from time to time.  Tariff rate of this consumer detailed below, Consumer No.9339

4

          The above  tariff  rate Rs.2.20 per unit is applicable from 01.05.13 to 31.03.14 and hence the under charge billing issued was based on the tariff order itself.  The bill is proper and as per the existing Tariff order.  Therefore  the consumer is liable for the payment of under charged bill for Rs.14652/-.  In this bill no  surcharge  or  penalty is  imposed.  The consumer is  liable  to  pay  the invoice amount of Rs.14652/- for which the consumer had already consumed the power.  The  consumer  will  not come under the purview of  the  consumer

Protection Act 1986,  since any damage, deficiency of service or unfair trade practice has not been committed by these opposite parties.

In view of the above pleadings the point that arise for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?

Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P14.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence either oral or documentary.  Heard both sides.

Point No.1&2

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are considered together.  Admittedly the complainant is the secretary of Janatha Drinking Water Suchithwa Samiti at Perumpuzha,  Kovilmukku  and  the  said

5

samiti supplies drinking water to 170 families.  It is also an undisputed fact that the complainant filed the complaint representing the samiti.  The said samiti has started the scheme for supplying drinking water to the member families in 3 cents of property donated by Rajamma Amma , Poykayil veedu, Kovilmukku in the year 2012.  It is also an admitted fact that the said Janantha Drinking Water Suchithwa Samiti is a consumer of the KSEB Ltd. Perumpuzha section which have taken electricity connection having consumer No.9339 in LT-1A during the year 2002.  As the electricity connection is in LT-1A category, the monthly electricity charges was calculated based on the average consumption of 170 families @ Rs.2 per unit.  The complainant  samiti without any default has been paying the electricity charges till the date of filing the complaint.  While so the complainant samiti has received a notice issued on 31.05.16 which is not a computer generated one but written on handwriting without signature, seal of the authorities who issued it, calling up on the complainant to pay total amount of Rs.14652/- towards bills after deducting the amount already paid.  It is further stated in the notice that if the amount is not paid on or before 25.06.16 electricity connection will be disconnected. 

The specific contention of the opposite party is that the 2^nd  opposite party has issued additional bill dated 31.05.16 for Rs.14652/- towards the arrears of electricity charges from May 2013 to March 2014.  According to the opposite parties when the bill was issued LT-6E tariff was applicable. But the assessment was made as per  tariff  LT-1A.  In view of the above electricity bill produced by the complainant it is clear  that the actual tariff applicable to the complainant till 31.03.14 was LT-1A.  Therefore the opposite party  is not entitled to issue bill by applying tariff  LT-6E for the year 2003-2004 and to claim excess amount.  The contention of the opposite parties when PW1 was in the witness box is that Ext.P1 bill is not an additional bill but as the electric meter was faulty the actual consumption was calculated and bill for the same was issued. 

6

But that fact is not mentioned in Ext.P1 bill hence the said contention  will not stand even for  a moment.  The  tariff noted is  6E under the details of consumption it was written that “short  on tariff” .  However there is no mention that the meter  was faulty.  It is further to be pointed out that even the opposite party has no such contention in the written version.  It is further to be pointed out that the opposite parties have not adduced  any evidence either oral or documentary to substantiate that they have lawfully changed the tariff and the complainant is liable to pay electricity charges under the tariff 6E.  Though the opposite party No.1&2 in the written joint version would claim that there was tariff order dated 9/9/15 with effect from 05.05.15 . The said tariff order also not seen produced and got marked in evidence. Even if the contention is considered the tariff change was come into force only from 05.05.15 onwards and not applicable to the disputed period.   

In view of the reasons stated above we hold that the disputed Ext.A1 bill dated 31.05.16 is neither  based on any authority nor supported by any reasons and therefore it will not stand  at all and the same is liable to be set aside. Points No.1 and 2 answered accordingly.

Point.No.3:-

In the result  the complaint stands allowed. The disputed Ext.P1 bill stands set aside.  As the main relief is granted no compensation awarded. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant  Smt.Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the   8^th   day of  August 2018.    

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

            M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

            Forwarded/by Order

           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

7

INDEX

Witness Examined for the Complainant:    Shyam Kumar

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1                  :         Electricity Bill

Ext.P2                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P3                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P4                  :         Copy of additional bill

Ext.P5                  :         Copy of  electricity bill

Ext.P6                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P7                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P8                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P9                  :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P10                :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P11                :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P12                :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P13                :         Copy of electricity bill

Ext.P14                :         Copy of minutes

Witnesses examined for the opposite parties:                Nil

Documents marked for the  opposite parties:                Nil

          E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

                                                                                              President

                      M.Praveen Kumar:Sd/-

                      Member

                                                                                              Forwarded/by Order

                    SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT