CC Filed on 01.04.2010
Disposed on 11.05.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 11th day of May 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 28/2010
Between:
1. Sri. K. Ramakrishnaraju, S/o. Anantharaju, Director, Bhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Tamaka, Kolar. 2. Sri. K. Anantha Raju, S/o. Krishnama Raju, Aged about 76 years, Managing Director, Bhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Tamaka, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. B.K. Giridhar & others) V/S 1. The Executive Engineer (Ele.) C.O & M Division, BESCOM, Kolar. 2. The Asst. Executive Engineer (Ele.) BESCOM Vigilance, Kolar - 563 101. | ….Complainant ….Opposite Parties |
(By Advocate Smt. B.S. Vijaya Kumari) | |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for setting aside the notice issued by OPs dated 31.05.2008 to complainants to pay Rs.46,620/- towards back billing charges and for costs, etc.,
2. The material facts that may be gathered from the documents and records produced and the submissions made by parties, for disposal of the controversy involved in this case may be stated as follows:
That the complainants are running a cold storage by name Bhavani Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., situated at Tamaka, Kolar. At the time of starting the Unit they applied for electricity connection along with application they had furnished wiring diagram of the power installations. That application was processed and the required amount was deposited towards the expenses of extending power supply to the Unit. The complainants have entered with an agreement with OPs on 23.03.2000 for supply of power. The sanctioned load of electricity was 66 H.P. as mentioned in the said agreement. The complainants had installed in the Unit two compressor motors of 40 H.P. to use them alternatively and they had also installed one compressor motor of 40 H.P. as standby and the installations of these motors are shown in the wiring diagram. They had also installed other small motors for running coolers and they had also installed lights. They had requested for supply of 66 H.P. electricity for their Units as per their application dated 22.12.1998. Thereafter the OPs after following the required procedures gave power connection receiving different deposits.
4. The officials of vigilance squad visited the premises of cold storage on 11.04.2008 and found that two compressor motors which are in use alternatively and one compressor motor as standby which was not working presently were found and each motor was rating 40 H.P. They also found one cooling motor of 7.5 H.P. and 18 air coolers of 0.75 H.P. and 35 bulbs of 40 watt. It is contended on behalf of complainants that the equipments and lightings installed at the time of sanctioning of the electricity after inspection were continued till this day without any alternation. It is further contended on behalf of complainants that even as per inspection report dated 11.04.2008 the connected load does not exceed 66 H.P.
5. The main thrust of argument of complainants is that when two compressor motors are in use alternatively and one compressor motor is in use as standby, the total connected load does not exceed 40 H.P. They contended that after supply of power in 2000 there were many inspections and visits by OPs and at no time they had found that the connected load was exceeding 66 H.P. Therefore the complainant say that the alleged claim of OPs that there was excess load of 37 H.P. is incorrect and thereby they are not liable for any back billing.
6. The OPs contended that the total of the connected load as per the inspection report dated 11.04.20008 comes to 103 H.P. and the sanctioned load was only 66 H.P., therefore the excess load was 37 H.P. According to OPs as per the provisions of Electricity Supply Regulation the complainants are liable for back billing which comes to Rs.46,620/-.
7. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties. The Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that proper procedure was not followed before imposing the back billing and only on that ground the notice demanding back billing may be set aside.
8. After going through the provisions we find much substance in the argument of complainants for the following reasons:
Sec-126 of the Electricity Act 2003 prescribes the procedure for assessment of back billing. Almost similar provisions are made in Condition No. 42.07 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licencees in the State of Karnataka.
These provisions say that the Assessing Officer shall serve the order of provisional assessment order upon the person in occupation of the premises calling upon him to file objection against the provisional assessment order or to accept it and to pay the amount. Admittedly in the present case that step is not followed.
9. We think the service of provisional assessment order and asking the Consumer to file his objection is a material step. After filing the objection if any the Assessing Officer has to pass an order giving reasons. It may also be stated that the provisional assessment order and the final assessment order should contain the facts and figures and reasons which can be understood by an ordinary prudent consumer. In the present case, the provisional assessment order prepared for office purpose and the calculation sheet and also the final order dated 31.05.2008 calling upon the consumer to pay the back billing charge do not contain any facts and figures and the reasons that can be understood by an ordinary consumer.
10. The Learned Counsel for OPs contended that this Forum cannot entertain the complaint as an Appeal is to be preferred under Condition No. 44 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licencees in the State of Karnataka and jurisdiction of this Forum is impliedly barred. We think that contention is not acceptable. Because the OPs have not followed the mandatory provision before passing the final back billing order. That illegality amounted to deficiency in service. The OPs are bound to follow the above said procedure and the consumers have a right to demand the OPs to fulfill that step before passing final back billing charge. Therefore we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed. The notice dated 31.05.2008 demanding back billing of Rs.46,620/- from complainants, issued by OPs is set aside. They can proceed with the case filed against complainants in accordance with law after following the procedure prescribed in Condition No. 42.07 of the Conditions of Supply of Electricity of the Distribution Licencees in the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 11th day of May 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
