By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed against the Opposite Party to cancel the excess amount demanded in electricity bill along with cost and compensation.
2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the beneficiary of electricity consumption No.9738. The tariff considered in the earlier bill was LT 1A. The premises subsequently was purchased by the Complainant. But even after information to the Opposite Party the connection in the name of the earlier owner of premises named Mathew still remains. The Complainant is demanded to pay Rs.9,091/- along with change of tariff from LT 1A to LT 7A. The illegal and improper bill issued to the Complainant was challenged by the Complainant in CC No.137/08 after disputing the bill issued by the Opposite Party in CC No.137/08 the Opposite Parties nurtured a dislike to the Complainant. The issuance of the demand notice dated 20.6.2011 which was served on the Complainant on 01.07.2011 in the name of M. Mathew consists of an amount for Rs.18,768/- plus service charges. The amount demanded from the Complainant is improper and incorrect. The Opposite Party unauthorisedly collected Rs.11,600/- and Rs.18,873/- on 26.4.2011 and 04.07.2011 respectively. The Complainant had to pay Rs.30,383/- towards the unauthrised and incorrect demand of the bill amount.
3. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to withdrew the bill dated 26.04.2011 and the demand notice dated 20.06.2011. The Opposite Party may be directed to return the amount deposited that are Rs.11,600/- and 18,873/- along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and cost.
4. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant is not a consumer as envisaged in the Electricity Act. The stand of the Complainant that he approached the Opposite Party for the change of ownership is nothing but a false allegation
which strikes the evasion from responsibility of the Complainant. The Complainant not so far made any attempt to change the ownership required by the provisions. The complaint CC No. 137/08 filed before this Forum has not challenged the change of tariff there in the Complainant questioned the penal bill and it was set aside. The Complainant has not remitted the subsequent bill amount after filing C.C. No.137/08. The periodical bills were issued in the premises. The consumer is responsible to remit the bill amount upon receival of the demand cum disconnection notice. The pretension of the Complainant that the subsequent bills were not issued are false. The periodical bills were issued to the consumer. Rs.3,000/- remitted by the Complainant as per order in IA 296/08 does not consists of any direction to adjust the amount to the future bills or to refund the same. The employees of the Complainant remitted Rs.11,600/- in consumer No.9738. The Complainant demanded back the amount remitted by the employees this complaint itself is consequent to the demand of the Complainant to get back the amount remitted.
5. The Complainant has no locus standi to institute this complaint. The consumption of consumer No.9738 is atpresent in category of LT 7A tariff from December 2008 onwards. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on the other hand the non remittance of the subsequent bill amount by the consumer caused loss and hardships to the Opposite Party for which the Complainant is responsible. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost Rs.50,000/-.
6. Points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the issuance of the disputed bill?
Relief and cost.
7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit of the Complainant and Opposite Party. Exts.A1 to A6 are the documents produced. The oral testimony of the Complainant and Opposite Party are also considered in this case.
8. The Complainant’s case is that the Opposite Party issued the disputed bill demanding Rs.9,091/- and an another bill in consumer No.9738 of Rs.11,600/-. The Complainant is not entitled to make the payment of disputed bills but collected the amount from the Complainant which is to be returned. The one of the main contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant is not a consumer and no steps were taken by the Complainant to transfer the connection of electricity in his name and no procedures were accomplished by the Complainant. The complainant in his oral testimony admitted that he is not a registered consumer, the registered consumer of this connection is one Mathew. On transfer of the right of this property to the Complainant he has applied for the transfer of the consumption of electricity to his name. According to this Complainant he is not paid any additional C.D and no test report was given by this Complainant to transfer the consumer number. In respect of this transfer of consumer number to the Complainant no scrap of paper is produced by this Complainant. It is admitted by this Complainant that test report and other things were not given and an application was also given for the furtherance of the transfer of consumer number to its name. In Assistant Engineer, KSEB V/S Dr. Sreekumar F.A 635/09 the Hon’ble State Commission held that the mere fact of payment of bills issued by a person cannot be considered as a consumer or beneficiary of the consumer.
9. The Complainant in this case is enjoying the consumption of electricity but the actual consumer is one Mathew. On examination of the Complainant as PW1 it is admitted that an applications for transfer of the consumer number is given by him and he is in possession of documents to establish his contention that he is the beneficiary of the consumer. Ext.A1 is the order of this Forum in CC No.137/08. Where in the contention of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party issued unauthorised bill to this Complainant. The Opposite Party witnessed as OPW1. According to him no amount is paid by the consumer from 2008 onwards. The Opposite Party is also having a plea that the Complainant stop the payment of electricity charges after filing complaint CC 137/08 in this Forum. The periodical bills issued to the Opposite Party is un responded. The Hon’ble State Commission further held that if a consumer has to be in the category of beneficiary of electricity under the provisions of this act it is to be substantiated by evidence. The other contention of the Opposite Party in this case is that in the question of pricing this Forum is not having any jurisdiction. The complaint filed earlier in this Forum by the Complainant is on change of tariff. Ext.A1 is the copy of the order of this Forum. This complaint is based on the unauthorised amount demanded by the Opposite Party from the consumer. Ext.A3 is the notice issued to the consumer for Rs.9,738/- and Ext.A6 series consists of the bill amount 11,557/- demanded from the consumer. The bills issued to the consumer is in LT 1A tariff. In CC 137/08 the penal bill issued to the consumer was challenged and the bill issued was quashed by the order of this Forum. The consumer No.9738 is still in 7A tariff according to the Opposite Party from December 2008 onwards. The Opposite Party raised the contention of whether the different in tariff is a consumer complaint. The Secretary, KSEB V/S Fr. Varner Appeal No. 557/2000 it is laid down that dispute on appropriate tariff and the reliefs claimed under cannot be considered as a consumer under provisions of the act.
In the light of the above inferences the Complainant is not entitle to get the protection of the act.
In the result the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 29th day of February 2012.
Date of filing: 05.09.2011.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N X I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Jose Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Pathrose. C.V. Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Order No. CC 137/2008 dt:29.08.2009.
A2. Copy of Order No. I.A. 296/2008. dt:25.10.2008.
A3. Copy of Notice. dt:20.06.2011.
A4. Copy of Lawyer notice. dt:04.07.2011.
A5 series (3 Nos.) Copy of Receipts.
A6 series (2 sheets) Copy of Receipts and Bill.
Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
