CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PALAKKAD, KERALA

Dated this the 24^th day of September, 2012.

Present: Smt. Seena. H, President

: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 13/01/2012

CC / 15 / 2012

K.Siddhan,

S/o.Late.Krishnan Kutty, - Complainant

Krishna Nivas,

Coimbatore Road, Palakkad-1.

(BY ADV. K.Dhananjayan)

Vs

1. The Kerala State Electricity

Board represented by Secretary,

Vaidyudhi Bhavan, Pattam, - Opposite parties

Trivandrum-4

(BY ADV. T.Reena)

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Sub Division,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Sulthanpet Division, Palakkad.

(BY ADV.T.Reena)

O R D E R

BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

Complaint in brief:-

Complainant is the consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.16724-0. Complainant is challenging the bi monthly bill dt.04/10/2011 issued by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.42,609/- for the period from 21/07/2011 to 23/09/2011. According to the complainant the average bi monthly reading for the preceding years was only 250 units. A written objection dt.11/10/2011 was sent to opposite party No.2 for which opposite party has sent a reply along with the sight mahazar. Complainant is challenging the sight mahazar for the following reasons. That it is not prepared following the mandatory provisions of law. The actual reasons for excess reading has not found out by the Engineer. That it is prepared without collecting the exact datas and reasons for the damage to the main switch. According to the complainant the main switch and the connected installation wires and other connected equipments were damaged due to sudden transmission and supply of electricity with high excess voltage than what is required and prescribed though the connection. Further stated that the precautionary measures taken by the complainant though noted by the opposite party, has stated as Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB) is seen by passed. According to the complainant it is an in correct statement. Complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.5500/- for replacing the main switch and other connections. According to the complainant he has not consumed that much electricity during the relevant period as stated by the opposite parties. Hence prays for cancellation of the said bill along with prayer for compensation and cost.

Opposite parties filed version contending the following:

That the connection provided to the complainant is a commercial connection LT-7A tariff. Opposite parties has inspected the premises based on intimation given by the complainant that there is abnormal recording of energy consumption at the premises of the complainant. Inspection was done on 01/10/2011. During inspection no fault was found with the meter. The reason for high consumption was due to short of the PVC wire inside the main switch. The brother of the complainant who was present at the site refused to accept the copy of the Site Mahazar. According to the opposite party even though energy is lost to earth without being utilized, the fact remains that Kerala State Electricity Board has supplied the energy recorded in the meter and hence the bill issued is perfectly correct. According to opposite party, KSEB shall be responsible for the installations up to the meter and cut out fuse only. Any damage beyond the cut out fuse is the sole responsibility of the consumer. Opposite party denies the say of the complainant that the high fluctuation in the supply of electricity was the cause of the damage to the equipment. Opposite party stated that not a single complaint has been received about such a fluctuation of electricity. Opposite parties also denies the say of the complainant that, the Site Mahazar was not prepared as per law. Hence according to opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on their part.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits, Ext.A1 to A9 except Ext.A2 and Ext.B1 to B3.

Issues for consideration:

1. Whether complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the bill dt.04/10/2011 issued by the opposite party is legal?

3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. If so what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issue No:1

Opposite parties raised a definite contention that as the connection provided to the complainant is a commercial connection, complainant will not come under the purview of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant on the other hand argued for the position that complainant is depending upon the rent from the building as a means of lively hood. As per Consumer Protection Act, Commercial purpose does not include use by a consumer of goods brought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Opposite party has not adduced any contrary evidence to disprove the said argument. Complainant has not been cross examined in this respect also. Hence we are of the view that complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Issue No:2 & 3

It is an admitted fact that opposite parties has supplied the energy to the complainant as registered by the meter. It is also an admitted fact that complainant has not actually consumed the energy supplied, but it was losed to the earth. As per Ext.A5 scene mahazar, the main switch and installation wires were in a damaged condition. According to the complainant it is due to the high fluctuation in the supply of energy. The question here is who is responsible for the maintenance of main switch and the installation wires beyond the cut off fuse. According to opposite party maintenance of the same beyond the cut off fuse is the responsibility of the consumer. It is seen that as per regulation 23(7) Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of supply 2005

“A Suitable earth leakage circuit breaker shall be provided at the point of commencement of supply where connected load exceeds 5 KW as per Rule 614 A of the rules so that the entire installation will be disconnected from the distribution mains if a leakage exceeding the statutory limit takes place”.

As per Ext.A5 Scene Mahazar, we find that the complainant has fixed the ELCB at the premises. But it is stated in the mahazar that Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB) has been by passed. Complainant argues for the point that the said statement made by the opposite party is incorrect. We find that the complainant on the one hand is arguing for the position that high voltage fluctuation has resulted in the damage to the main switch and the installation wires. On the other hand argues that Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB) is seen by passed as stated in the mahazar is wrong. We do not understand how these two statements can go together. If the Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB) has been properly connected, voltage fluctuation would not have affected the apparatus. So we do not find any reason to disbelieve the scene mahazar. Further in the scene mahazar it is clearly stated that complainant refused to receive the copy of the Mahazar.

So we find that though energy has not been consumed by the complainant, he is responsible for not maintaining the main switch and earthing properly. If the complainant has by passed the Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB), he is also responsible for its after consequences.

In view of the above discussions we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove a case in his favour.

In the result complaint dismissed. Order in IA 29/2012 shall stand vacated.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 24^th day of September, 2012.

Sd/-

Smt. Seena. H

President

Sd/-

Smt. Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext. A1– Bill No.516519 dt.04/10/2011 issued by the KSEB

Ext. A3- Letter dt. 07/10/2011 submitted by the complainant to KSEB(copy)

Ext. A4 - Letter dt.11/10/2011 submitted by the complainant to KSEB(copy)

Ext.A5-Letter dt.12/10/2011 and copy of site mahazar issued by Asst.Exe.Engineer.

Ext.A6- Bill No.256736 dt.18/03/2011 issued by KSEB.

Ext.A7- Bill No.274725 dt.18/05/2011 issued by KSEB.

Ext.A8- Bill No.294342 dt.21/07/2011 issued by KSEB.

Ext.A9- Invoice No.3918 dated.03/10/2011 purchasing materials for repairing the damaged main switch and connected parts.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1- Proceedings of Electricity connection

Ext.B2- Bill No.206088 dt.04/11/2010 issued by KSEB.

Ext.B3- Bill No.236784 dt.21/01/2010 issued by KSEB.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil.