CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of June 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 31/07/2013
CC / 124 / 2013
Mr.K.K.Chenthamarakshan,
S/o.Kunjappan, K.K.Tower,
West Fort, Palakkad, : Complainant
Palakkad Taluk.
(By Adv.J.Kamesh)
Vs
- The Chairman,
The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidhyudhi Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram.
- The Secretary
The Kerala State Electricity Board,:Opposite parties
Vaidhyudhi Bhavan,
- The Assistant Executive Engineer,
The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Sulthanpet, Palakkad
(By Adv.T.Reena)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
Brief case of the complaint :-
The case of the complainant is that he is having electric connection bearing the consumer No.15202 at the Sulthanpet Section of the Kerala State Electricity Board. The complainant was regularly paying electricity bill as per the bill issued by the KSEB. The occupant of the building was ICICI Bank. From January 2013 onwards the bank vacated the building and thus the complainant started staying in the building for his domestic purpose. From January 2013 electricity was used only for his domestic purpose. Complainant was paying the bill as per the demand shown in the electricity bill till the month of June. When the complainant verified the bill it is charged under the tariff LT-6B which is to be charged only for commercial purposes. The complainant intimated this fact to the KSEB authorities. But the request was rejected by the authorities through a letter dated 22/07/2013 issued by 3rd opposite party addressed to the complainant stating that the complainant being an advocate, and using one of the rooms for his advocate office, the tariff cannot be changed to LT-IA the domestic purposes and the tariff will be continued as tariff LT-6B which is to be for the commercial purposes only.
The complainant submits that he is not using the premises for any commercial purposes and he is using the building as a dwelling house for his own residence with his family and he is entitled to use the premises as his residential house and he is entitled to the tariff as LT-IA as named by the KSEB authorities from 1.1.2013 onwards. The complainant also states that he had suffered a monitory loss of Rs.20,000/- as excess payment which he had already remitted for the electricity for which he had not actually used. He claims Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony he had undergone. Hence the complainant had approached before this Forum seeking an order to direct the opposite parties to collect electricity charges from the complainant only according to the units actually consumed and the tariff to be changed LT-IA for domestic purposes, and also to direct the opposite parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- which had already been paid by the complainant as excess, and also to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of claiming and collecting huge amount as alleged electricity bill which is not legally sustainable along with the cost of this proceedings.
Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite parties for appearance. Opposite parties entered appearance through counsel and filed version stating the following contentions: The service connection with consumer number 15202 under electrical section, Sultanpet, stands registered in the name of the complainant herein. Tariff assigned consumer no.15202 is LT VI B which is given for the purpose of Advocate’s office. The consumer has not intimated the opposite parties when the premises were given on rent to ICICI Bank. For banking purposes, the tariff should have been LT VI C which is of higher rate than LT VI B. The avernment in the complaint that the usage of electricity in the premises of consumer No.15202 is purely domestic from January 2013 is absolutely false. When the complainant had applied for tariff change from LT VI B to LT I(Domestic) on 8/7/2013, the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Sultanpet had personally inspected the consumer premises and found that a portion of the building in ground floor was being used as an Advocate’s office. The connected load of the said portion was found to be 1660 W including an air conditioner with a power rating of 1250 W. As per the “ Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for Retail Supply by KSEB” it is clearly mentioned that “ Domestic Consumers shall be allowed to utilize electrical energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than domestic as defined under LT I when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load of 500W in their premises. When connected load other than domestic use in such cases exceeds the above 20% or 500W whichever is less, such loads shall be segregated and separate service connection obtained under appropriate tariff. When this is not done, the tariff applicable to the whole service shall be at the appropriate tariff applicable to the connected load used for purpose other than domestic, if such tariff is higher than the tariff for LT I. As per the above, the appropriate tariff of consumer No.15202 is LT VI B itself. Moreover it was seen that a chit company was also functioning in a portion of the 1st floor of the building. This fact has been purposefully hidden by the petitioner. Hence the request of the complainant to change the tariff of consumer No.15202 from LT VI B to LT I cannot be considered. If the complainant segregates the load of the Advocate’s office and takes a new service connection for the same, then the tariff of consumer number 15202 can be changed to LT I domestic, provided there are no other commercial activities in other portions of the building. Hence the complaint had to be dismissed with costs. Both complainant as well as opposite parties filed chief affidavits Exts A1-A3 was marked from the side of the complainant and Ext.B1-B3 were marked from the side of the opposite parties. Opposite party was examined as DW1.
Matter was heard. At the time of hearing opposite parties counsel filed petition to reopen evidence for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the site and file a report. For the just and proper adjudication of the case IA 24/14 was allowed and Advocate C.S.Sreedevi was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to inspect the site and file a report. Commissioner inspected the property and filed a report which was marked as Ext.C1. Complainant filed objections to commission report along with permission to cross examine to Advocate Commissioner. Accordingly Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard again.
Issues to be considered are;
- Whether the complainant is having an Advocate Office at the alleged building ?
- What is the tariff to be charged by the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for any damages?
- If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issue No.1:
According to the complainant he is staying there with his family and using the electricity for domestic purpose only from January 2013. When the complainant realized that the opposite party is charging the bill under the tariff LT VI B which is used for commercial purposes he intimated this fact to KSEB authorities through a letter which was marked as Ext.A1. Opposite parties in their version had stated that immediately on receipt of this notice on 08/07/2013 Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Sultanpet had personally inspected the consumer premises and found that a portion of the building in the ground floor was being used as an Advocate office. The inspection report was marked as Ext.B2. The connected load of the said portion was found to be 1660W including an air conditioner with a power rating of 1250 W. To prove the alleged fact the opposite party had also taken out commission and the commission report was marked as Ext.C1. As per the Commissioner’s report commissioner had stated that the complainant is holding his Advocate’s office in the building. The petition schedule property is a three storied building and commissioner could see the board exhibiting that “K.K.Chenthamarkshan, ADVOCATE NOTARY on the exterior wall of the 3rd floor of the building. Below the board it was written as residence:”Jain Temple Road, Vadakkanthara, Palakkad” and on the right side office:”K.K.Tower, Near I.C.I.CI Bank, west fort road, Palakkad”. The complainant in his complaint had also admitted that the earlier occupant of the building was I.C.IC.I Bank. On the left side of the outer wall of the ground floor the Commissioner could see the electricity metre installed which bears consumer No.15202. Commissioner had also stated that the 1st floor and 2nd floor of the said building is being used as his residence and she could see the kitchen on the left side of the stairs and a drawing room on the right side on the 1st floor. On the 2nd floor she could see two bedrooms on the left and right side of the staircase. She could also notice visiting cards kept on the office table which also shows the office address as ”K.K.Tower, Near I.C.I.CI Bank, west fort road, Palakkad”. Moreover the complainant had not produced any evidence before the Forum to prove that he is running an Advocate office other than the above building. From the above facts it can be concluded that the petitioner is having an Advocate office attached to his residence in the disputed building without any doubt. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
Issue No.2:
According to the version filed by the opposite party as per the “Schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for Retail Supply By KSEB” it is clearly stated that “Domestic consumers shall be allowed to utilize electrical energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purposes other than domestic as defined under LTI when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load or 500 Watts in their premises. When connected load other than domestic use in such cases exceeds the above 20% or 500 W whichever is less, such loads shall be segregated and separate service connection obtained under appropriate tariff. When this is not done, the tariff applicable to the whole service shall be at the appropriate tariff applicable to the connected load used for purpose other than domestic, if such tariff is higher than the tariff for L.T.I.” The said extract was produced which was marked as Ext.B3. As per the above provisions the appropriate tariff applicable to the complainant (Consumer No.15202) is LT VI B itself.
Issue No.3:
From the above discussions the opposite party in their version had stated that the complainant had not intimated when the premises were given on rent to I.C.I.C.I Bank for banking purposes. This fact was known to them only when the complainant applied for tariff change. The above fact was admitted by the complainant in the complaint also. According to the opposite parties for banking purposes the tariff should have been LT VI C which is of higher rate than LT VI B. More over the opposite party had also found a chit company functioning in the portion of the 1st floor of the building. However this fact was not brought out during the inspection of the Commissioner at the time of her inspection. But at the time of her visit she had noticed that a board of Hindustan Ayurcare Pvt.Ltd was affixed on the exterior wall of the 3rd floor of the building. At the time of cross examination she had admitted that a medical shop was functioning at the said building. Considering the above facts it can be concluded that the request of the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- paid as excess to the opposite party cannot be considered, since there were other commercial activities in the other portions of the building. Hence issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the request of the complainant to change the tariff of the consumer No.15202 from LT VI B to LT I cannot be considered. Hence the above complaint is dismissed without costs.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of June 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Letter to the Asst.Executive Engineer, KSEB, Palakkad.
Ext.A2 - Letter dtd.22/07/2013 request for tariff change of consumer No.15202.
Ext.A3 - Electricity Bill Amount Rs.2600/-.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Application for change of tariff (True Copy).
Ext.B2 - Reply of tariff change.
Ext.B3 - Extract of “Schedule of Tariff and Terms and conditions for Retail Supply By KSEB.
Commission Report
C1 -
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1 - C.S.Sreedevi (Advocate Commissioner)
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
DW1- Premraj.C.V, Asst.Exe.Engineer, KSEB, Sultanpet,Palakkad
