IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 30th day of August, 2016
Filed on 04.06.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.167/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. A. K. Gopidas 1. The Executive Engineer
Ettinte Chirayil KSEB., Electrical Division
Kuttamangalam P.O. Near Shavakkotta Bridge
Kainakary, Alappuzha Alappuzha
(M/s. Rafeek & Associates)
2. The Asst. Engineer
KSEB., Electrical Section
Kainakary
(By Adv. Jayan C. Das – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant had rented out his house to use as Computer Centre. He applied for the change of tariff to the opposite party on 30.7.2013. Upon processing the application the officer inspected the premises and the complainant remitted the due amount also. On 23.2.2015 he has received an additional bill demanding Rs.2780/- towards balance amount. The opposite party has no right to demand such an amount from the complainant and that demand notice caused much mental agony to the complainant, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The lease arrangement of the complainant with one Mr. Vishnu Vijayan is not within the knowledge of the opposite party. The complainant had submitted application for tariff change on 28.2.2013 and upon processing his application, the complainant was demanded to remit the required fees on 19.3.2013. Then the complainant had remitted the fee on 30.7.2013 which is after a long period more than 4 months. But due to some technical errors in office procedures, the effect of tariff change couldn’t be affected after 30.7.2013. But the main reason for this omission was nothing but the delay, caused by the complainant himself, made in payment of the required fee. During this delay period of more than four months, some rearrangements in duties were made among employees, which is a routine practice. The person who dealt with this application was assigned to some other nature of works and new employee allotted to this type of work was not well known to this pending application. More over the complainant had not intimated the case to the office, even if he was aware the same. But during the law abiding audit of a statutory audit team, this anomaly was elucidated and audit team directed the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kainakary to realize the short assessment due to non change of tariff. On the date of inspection of 16.3.2013, it was ascertained that the shop was functioning as computer centre. So the audit team wanted to realize the current charge from the month on which the application was submitted to the date of audit at a higher rate as computer centre and issue short assessment bill after deducting the payment already made at the lower rate of small bunks. No penalty and back interest was imposed on the bill. Only short assessment was made as per the audit instruction and bill issued on 23.2.2015 which is totally liable to the consumer. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. The complainant had applied for the change of tariff from 1.7.2013 to 31.10.2014 to the opposite party. But it was not done by the opposite party. Later opposite party demanded certain amount towards arrears of electricity by issuing an additional bill stating that the tariff remain unchanged due to the mistake in the computer system and the complainant is liable to pay the additional amount which the complainant is legally bound to pay as per the tariff change affected from the date of application. The mistake was found by the auditing team and only thereafter the additional amount is demanded and that too admitting their faults excluding of interests and other changes. Ext.A6 evidenced the same. Had the tariff change was done at the appropriate time, the complainant ought to have remitted the electricity change at the revised rate. Hence the amount demanded as per the additional bill is the amount legally due from the complainant. After having consumed the energy at higher tariff rate, the complainant is estopped from taking advantage by complaining about the delay in changing the tariff. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
However, the complainant need to pay the additional amount of Rs.2,780/- claimed as per the demand notice dated 23.02.2015 without any interest. The opposite parties are directed to receive the same by 10 installments without imposing any interest or penalty.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - A.K.. Gopidas (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Demand notice for Rs.2780/- dated 23.2.2015
Ext.A2 - Receipt No.0027169
Ext.A3 - Demand notice dated 21.5.2015
Ext.A4 - Application dated 28.05.2015
Ext.A5 - Copy of the application dated 18.5.2015
Ext.A6 - Copy of the letter dated 23.6.2015 from KSEB
Ext.A7 - Receipt dated 4.7.2015
Ext.A8 - Letter dated 20.10.2015 from KSEB
Ext.A9 - Receipt dated 20.10.2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
