Complaint filed on: 18-12-2015                                                      Disposed on: 30-11-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.145/2015

DATED THIS THE 30^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -                                                     

R.Devegowda

S/o. Rangappa,

Aged about 62 years,

Resident of Melekote Ring Road, Maralur, Tumakuru

(By Advocate Sri.T.S.Niranjan)     

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.), City subdivision-2, Bengaluru Electricity Co. Ltd, Opp. DDPI office, SS Puram, Tumakuru.
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Vigilence, Near Kothi Thopu, Tumakuru.
3. The Superintendent, Engineer (Elect), BESOM, Near Kothithopu, Tumakuru.

(OP No.1 to 3 by Advocate Sri.M.S.Sreedhara Murthy)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint has filed by this complainant against the OP No.1 to 3, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 to 3 to take back the bill of Rs.2,18,677=00 for the power connection of RR No.A-17439 and Rs.67,399=00 for the RR No.A-19294 and to issue the bill according to LT-3 (commercial purpose) from 2015 onwards and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000=00 for mental agony and harassment caused to him, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant is a consumer under the 1^st OP having a building and he has got a power connection from the 1^st OP vide RR No.A-17439 and A-19294 since from the year 2000.

          The complainant further submitted that, since from the date of power connection from the OP, the complainant is paying electricity charges regularly as per the OPs bill and at any point of time, the complainant is not a defaulter. Since, from the date of power connection the complainant has not used the electricity for the purpose of commercial activities. From the year 2015 onwards the said building is converted in to ladies hostel and now the complainant is promptly ready to pay the electricity charges according to the charges to be imposed for commercial purpose.

          The complainant further submitted that, the 1^st OP has issued a letter dated 18-3-2015 to the complainant stating that the complainant has to pay the deficiency bill of Rs.2,18,677=00 for the power connection RR No.A-17439 and Rs.67,399=00 for the RR No.A-19294 and it is to be payable within 30 days and complainant is instructed to convert the power connection from LT-2 to LT-3 and if any objections is there that may be made within 15 days. The complainant has filed an objection to the said letter.

          The complainant further submitted that, even after lapse of four months, the 1^st OP and 3^rd OP have not heard the objections and the complainant has visited to the 1^st OP and 3^rd OP’s office so many times and requested to quash the deficit alleged bill vide notice dated 18-3-2015 and the efforts made by the complainant is went in vain and again he has filed an appeal before the 3^rd OP for seeking orders of withdrawal and quashing the alleged deficiency fill of Rs.2,18,677=00 and Rs.67,399=00.

          The complainant further submitted that, the 3^rd OP has forwarded the appeal filled by the complainant very recently to the 1^st OP with a direction to issue the modified bill by considering the objections filed earlier and on the basis of appeal grounds. On 14-12-2015 the 1^st OP has issued the modified bill and intimated to the complainant to pay Rs.1,89,684=00 instead of its earlier bill of Rs.2,18,677=00 and Rs.54,357=00 instead of its earlier bill of Rs.67,394=00. The complainant has to convert the connection from LT-2 to LT-3 immediately and pay the above modified bill amount within the three days otherwise the company will take action against the complainant.

          The complainant further submitted that, the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Commission is a body constituted under India Electricity Act. The KERC direction is to be followed by all the electricity supplies companies. The direction given by the KERC, BESCOM should not claim the deficiency amount for a long period. In this particular case the OPs have charged exorbitantly that too from the year 2000 and without considering the directions of the KERC, this act of the OPs are illegal and even after filing of objections from the complainant, the OPs have not considered the request, objections and appeal made by the complainant.

          The complainant further submitted that, the complainant is a senior citizen and he is suffering from heart disease and under gone heart operation and still now he is taking treatment. These facts are brought to the knowledge of the OPs, but without considering the legal grounds and health grounds of the complainant. The 1^st OP has often and often issued the notices to pay the deficiency bill allegedly even though he is not misused the electricity supply, theft the electricity or bypassed the electricity line have harassed like anything. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3. After service of notice, the OP No.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objections.

4. In the version, the 1^st OP has admitted that, the complainant is a consumer under the 1^st OP, but these OPs have not aware of the fact that, the complainant constructed many rooms for the purposes of letting to the poor students and he has got power connection from the 1^st OP bearing No.RR.A-17439 and 19294. The complainant is paying electricity charges as per the bill issued by the 1^st OP. Further 1^st OP denied that, the complainant has not used the electricity for the purpose of commercial activities.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, 1^st OP has issued two letters dated 18-3-2015 to the complainant and demanding to pay the deficiency bill of Rs.1,80,725=00 and the complainant is using 6.5 KW unauthorizedly without the consent of the 1^st OP, as such the 1^st OP has imposed Rs.37,952=00 in all Rs.2,18,677=00. Further the 1^st OP has also got issued a letter dated 18-3-2015 to the complainant in respect of RR No.A-19294 to demanding to pay Rs.67,399=00 within 30 days from the date of service of this notice. Further the 1^st OP directing the complainant to convert LT-2 to LT3.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the 1^st OP has sanctioned only 5 KW electricity power to the complainant. The 2^nd OP has visited the said installations and inspected the said installations on 10-2-2015 at the time of inspection it is found that the complainant has taken 5 H.P. power, but he is using 11 KW and billing due under LT-2(A) instead of LT-3 tariff.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has running ladies hostel under the name and style of SGR hostel, as per the Section 29 (3) of Supply Regulation Act. The complainant has to pay deficiency amount within 7 days from the date of service of the notice.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, as per the order of the Superintendent Engineer, the 1^st OP revised the order and issued the notice to the complainant, inspite of service of the notice, the complainant has failed to pay the revised bill amount. The complainant has not preferred any appeal before the competent authority to challenge the order of the Superintendent Engineer Tumakuru and revised bill issued by the 1^st OP. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. When the remedy is available under Section 4b (1), hence the complaint is not sustainable before this Forum. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and 1^st OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents along with the complaint. The 1^st OP has produced documents, which were marked as EX-R1 to R6. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.   

6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 to 3 as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the negative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          8. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence, objections of the OP and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant had taken the power connection to his building from the 1^st OP under RR No.A-17439 and A-19294 since from 2000.

9. It is also admitted fact that, that, the vigilance of the 2^nd OP had visited the complainant’s building on 10-2-2015 at about 4.00 p.m. and inspected the spot and done the mahazar (panchanama) as per Ex-R1 and R2 and issued a letter to the complainant on 18-3-2015. The complainant had used unauthorizedly the 11 KV instead of 5 KV and billing was done under LT2 instead of LT3. The complainant was due Rs.2,18,677=00 + Rs.67,399=00 as per annexure-1 and directed the complainant convert the connection from LT2 to LT3.

10. Further it is also admitted fact that, the complainant had approached the 1^st OP by filing objection dated 18-4-2015 as per annexure-1 and 2, and the 1^st OP had revised the bill amount to Rs.1,80,725=00 instead of Rs.2,18,677=00 and Rs.54,357=00 instead of Rs.67,394=00 and the same was intimated to the complainant on 14-12-2015 as per annexure-3.

11. Further it is also admitted fact that, the complainant was running the above said building for the purpose of ladies hostel.

12. The contention of the complainant is that, he was paying the electricity charges as per the billing amount without any default. The complainant further submitted that, the building was converted into ladies hostel only in the year 2015, but the OPs have charged electricity bill from the year 2002. To substantiate his contention, the complainant has not produced any documents to show that, he was using the above said building for residential purpose till 2015. Further the complainant has failed to prove that, he is running the above said building for ladies hostel after 2015. The complainant could have produced the rental agreement is to evidence the fact that the hostel was running only after 2015. The complainant has further submitted that, Karnataka Electricity Reforms Commission is a Body constituted under India Electricity Act. As per the direction given by the KERC, the BESCOM should not claim the deficiency amount for a long period. To substantiate his contention the complainant has not produced any documents. Hence, this contention of the complainant cannot be considered.

13. So after careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of both parties, it is crystal clear that, the complainant had approached the OP, after receiving the letter from the 1^st OP and the 1^st OP has revised the bill amount to Rs.1,89,684=00 instead of Rs.2,18,677=00 and Rs.54,357=00 instead of Rs.67,394=00 and the same was intimated to the complainant on 14-12-2015, but the complainant had not approached the appellate authority i.e. 2^nd appellate authority as per the KEB Supply Regulations 1988 under section 46.06 challenging the order of the first appellate authority. Section 46.06 of KEB (SR) 1988 which reads as follows:

“46.06. If the consumer is not satisfied with the orders or the Appellate Authority, he may also file a second appeal to the Second Appellate Authority within one month of receipt of the order of the First appellate Authority. However, such appeal shall be filed only after payment of the amount as decided by the First Appellate Authority, for admitting the appeal”.

14. The complainant has not preferred any appeal before the competent authority to challenge the revised bill amount of Rs.1,89,457 issued by the 1^st OP. Instead of doing so, the complainant had approached this Forum by alleging that he is not entitled to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,18,674=00 and 67,399=00. This Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since there is an alternative remedy is available to the complainant is to approach the appellate authority under the Karnataka Power Supply Regulation Act. Hence the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and accordingly we answer point no.1 in the negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

(Vide detailed separate order dated 18-11-2016)

The complaint is disposed off. No costs.    

The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 30^th day of

November 2016).

MEMBER                       MEMBER                       PRESIDENT