BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 483/2001 Filed on 27.11.2001

Dated : 16.02.2009

Complainant:

S. Vijayan, Kuzhivilla Veedu, Thurivikal Post, Pulayanarkotta, Thiruvananthapuram – 31.

Opposite parties:

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, EMS, Kerala State Electricity Board, Ulloor, Thiruvananthapuram.

    

2. S. Ajaya Kumar, Chithira Bhavan, Koluvila, Pulayanarkotta, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. A.V. Haris Faizal)

 

1. The Secretary, KSEB, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 4.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 27.01.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.01.2009, the Forum on 16.02.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is conducting business in the premises of building No. T.C 6/947,948 at Pulayanarkotta owned by him and having electrical connection under Consumer No. U 2378, and that the 1^st opposite party made inspection in the said premises and complainant was compelled to pay higher tariff in VII A under protest for the non-use of electricity. Complainant requested the 1^st opposite party for curing the defects on meter installed in his premises. 1^st opposite party initiated proceedings against the 2^nd opposite party under the guise of unauthorized extension of electricity for the petitioner's consumer No. U 2378. The 1^st opposite party had already removed the electric meter which was functioning promptly without the consent or knowledge of the complainant and installed a defective one in the place of the other. Hence this complaint to direct the 1^st opposite party to replace the existing electric meter which is defective, to refix the tariff in the original condition and to withhold the proceedings against 2^nd opposite party and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/-.

1^st and 3^rd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and that the Consumer No. U 2378 stands registered in the name of one Krishnan Nair. N. The complainant has not so far taken any steps as per clause 15(C) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy Regulations. The consumption pattern of electricity for the period from 6/98 to 10/01 is as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Date Meter Consumption Bill Date Meter Consumption

Reading Reading

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------25.06.98 4481 - 22.04.00 8162 293

24.08.98 4884 403 27.06.00 8513 351

23.10.98 5378 494 28.08.00 8864 351

26.12.98 5773 395 27.10.00 9247 383

25.02.99 6040 267 22.12.00 9553 306

28.04.99 6455 415 26.02.01 9967 414

27.06.99 6742 287 27.04.01 382 415

26.08.99 7035 293 28.06.01 822 440

26.10.99 7298 263 27.08.01 1222 400

27.12.99 7578 280 30.10.01 1792 570

26.02.00 7869 291

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------As per clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy complainant has not followed the procedure. No complaint regarding the soundness of meter is pending. On 07.11.2001, the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party inspected the premises and found that an unauthorized extension of electricity is seen taken from Consumer No. U 2378 for running a local cable TV net work. A notice under Sec. Clause 42(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy was issued to the consumer to remove the authorized extension of electricity. The act of the complainant was against the contract entered with the Board. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 3 and none of the reliefs sought for are allowable.

2^nd opposite entered appearance and filed version contending that 2^nd opposite party is not a consumer in connection with Con. No. U 2378. A notice was served to 2^nd opposite party by the 1^st opposite party dated 08.11.2001 directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 20520/- as penal charges alleging that 2^nd opposite party had been utilizing the unauthorized extension of electricity from the said consumer No. On enquiry 2^nd opposite party came to know that S.Vijayan is the consumer or beneficiary of the above said connection. 2^nd opposite party was impleaded unnecessarily as a party in the said O.P. Hence prayed to remove him from the party array.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the existing electric meter to Consumer No. U 2378 is defective?

2. Whether complainant is entitled to tariff conversion?

3. Whether the proceedings against the 2^nd opposite is to be withheld?

4. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 3?

5. Other reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 1^st opposite party has filed counter affidavit and marked Ext. D1. 1^st opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. 2^nd opposite party has also filed affidavit.

It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is the consumer of opposite parties 1 & 3 vide consumer No. U 2378, that complainant had consumed only minimum unit of electricity for the purpose of conducting his business, that complainant had compelled to pay higher tariff in VII A under protest and that opposite parties had removed electric meter which was functioning promptly without the consent or knowledge of the complainant and installed defective one in the place of the other. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite party is taking coercive steps to disconnect the said electric connection. Submission by the opposite parties 1 & 3 is that Consumer No. 2378 stands registered in the name of one Krishnan Nair, that the complainant conducting the business in the said premises has not so far taken any steps as per clause 15(c) of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy Regulations which forms part of the service connection agreement and hence complainant has no locus standi to approach this Forum. Complainant did not deny the same in his affidavit, nor did complainant furnish any document showing the said consumer No. stands in the name of the complainant. Ext. P4 is the bill dated 28.10.2002 issued by the opposite party, under tariff VII A to Con. No. 2378. Evidently from Ext. P4 complainant is an occupier of the premises and enjoying electrical connection. Complainant did not furnish any document like meter card showing that opposite party had installed a defective meter in the place of defectless meter. 1^st opposite party has been vehemently cross examined by the complainant. No question relating to installation of defective meter in the place of defectless meter was put to 1^st opposite party by the complainant. In his cross examination 1^st opposite party replied that no complaint regarding the soundness of meter is pending in his office. Sec. 26 of the Electricity Act requires to maintain the correct meter. The correctness of the meter can be certified by the Electrical Inspector on application by either party. Since no application regarding the soundness of the meter was lodged by the complainant, the allegation that opposite party had installed the defective meter in the place of defectless meter without his consent does not hold good. The initial burden of proving the case would rest on the complainant. In the absence of any evidence to support the complaint, we cannot hold that the existing meter is defective. Next issue is regarding the tariff conversion. Opposite party has detailed the pattern of consumption of electricity for the period from 6/98 to 10/01. Opposite party submitted that as per clause 30 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, th change of tariff under LT from higher to lower tariff shall be permitted in bonafide cases by an officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer at the request of the consumer. The Executive Engineer shall satisfy himself the bonafide of the request and record in reasons while permitting the change of tariff. A supplemental schedule to the original service connection agreement showing the change in classification/tariff has also to be got executed by the consumer. Complainant never mentioned in the complaint/affidavit that the said procedure under clause 30 was followed by him. Opposite parties at the time of argument, filed two documents which are on the records. One document is the copy of the application for change of tariff dated 03.04.2008 filed by the complainant. Another is the copy of the statement for change of tariff issued by the Executive Engineer, KSEB. As per the said statement for change of tariff under VII A is changed to VII B with effect from 07.06.2008. In the light of the said statement for change of tariff we find the tariff is converted. The next point requiring consideration is whether the proceedings against 2^nd opposite party is to be withheld. 2^nd opposite party filed version contending that he is not a consumer in connection with consumer No. U 2378, that 2^nd opposite party was served with a notice by 1^st opposite party dated 08.11.2001 directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 20,520/- as penal charges alleging that he had been utilizing the unauthorized extension of the electricity from Con. No. 2378 and that on his personal enquiry he came to know that S. Vijayan is the consumer of the above said electrical connection. Since complainant claims to be the holder of Consumer No. 2378, we think the complaint is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party. Complainant did not produce the said penalty bill. Submission by the opposite party is that on 07.11.2001, the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party inspected the premises and found that an unauthorized extension of electricity is seen taken from Consumer No.2378 for running a local cable TV net work, that a notice under clause 42(a) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy was issued the consumer to remove the unauthorized extension of electricity within 24 hours and also complainant was asked to remit an amount of Rs. 20,520/- as penal charges. Ext. D1 is the site mahazar. In his cross examination, opposite party deposed that a penal bill was issued to the consumer. Complainant did not produce the said bill. 2^nd opposite party never claims to be the holder of Consumer No. U 2378, nor does 2^nd opposite party challenge the penal bill issued by 1^st opposite party. Since the penal bill is not before us, the third point does not deserve consideration. In view of the above, we find no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16^th February 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 483/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of Electoral Identity card No. KL/20/134/483725.

P2 - Letter dated 13.10.2001 from the opposite party to the complainant.

P3 - 1. Photocopy of professional tax receipt dated 31.03.2002 for Rs. 587/-.

• 2. Photocopy of professional tax receipt dated 31.03.2002 for Rs. 195/-.

• 3. Photocopy of professional tax receipt dated 31.03.2002 for Rs. 322/-.

P4 - Receipt No. 152 dated 15.11.2002.

P4(a) - Demand and disconnection notice dated 28.10.2002.

III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :

DW1 - S. Raveendran Nair

IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT