SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            This complaint filed by the complainant for seeking to quash electricity bill, compensation costs etc.

The averments in the complaint can be  briefly summarized as follows:

The first complainant is the owner of the premises and second complainant is running cable TV net work.  Electric connection is given to the premises under Consumer No.,14446.  The first complainant applied for a fresh electric meter for the purpose of running the cable TV net work and accordingly the connection was provided after the inspection of opp.party.3.  Thereafter the electricity charges were being remitted regularly.  On  26.11.2005 an invoice was served on the first complainant for Rs.24,581/-.  On examination of the bill it was noticed that the  same was issued  for arrears from 12/02 to 4/04  as the tarrif under which electricity was supplied was wrongly shown.  The bill was to be paid on or before 9.11.2005.  The issuance of the bill for a long period from 12/2002 to 4/2004 is unfair trade practice.  The bill was also issued after the  expiry of 18 months.  Hence the complaint.

Opp.parties 1 and 3 filed a joint version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The averment in para 3 of the complaint are false and hence denied.  The complainant had applied for electric connection on 12.11.99 before the 3^rd opp.party  and  deposited necessary amount on 9.12.99, and accordingly he was given  connection with Consumer No.14446.  The connected load  as per agreement was3x40+2x60+2x60= 360 W and the tariff was fixed as VII B  The connection was effected on 15.1.2000.  The premises  were being used by the second complainant for cable TV operation work is without any  permission or intimation of the opp.parties.  On 5/2004 while taking spot bill by the spot biller it was noticed that  the premises is used for cable TV operation which is violation  of the agreement .  Hence the spot biller issued  bill under VII A tariff.     The premises were being used for cable TV from the very beginning.   As   per the Board order No.BO [F] No.1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002 dated 24.10.2002 tariff of cable TV installation is filed under VII A tariff.   As per the direction of the Regional Audit Inspection party the opp.party prepared bill for the balance amount to the bill already issued under Tariff VII B to VII A for the period from 12/2002 to 4/2004 amounting to Rs.24581/- The Board  has every right to rectify the mistake in categorization  and  under billing .   The complaint is

the ill-motivated and without any bonafides .  The opp.parties have acted  in good faith.   There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and hence they prays to dismiss the complaint.

The 2^nd opp.party filed a separate version with more or less  identical contentions.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether Ext.P1 bill is liable to be set-aside

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3.  Reliefs and costs.

POINTS;

There is no dispute that the 1^st complainant is the consumer and the 2^nd complainant was running a cable TV Net work in that premises.  It is also not disputed that originally the connection was given under VII B tariff which was subsequently changed to VII A tariff from 5/04 .  The grievance of the complainant is that while he was remitting electricity charges under 7 A tariff the opp.parties issued Ext.P1 bill for Rs.24581/- requiring him to remit the amount on or before 29.11.2005 which in violation of the provisions of Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005.

The learned counsel for opp.parties would argue that the issuance of Ext.P1 is due to a mistake in categorization and the opp.party has every right to rectify a mistake in categorizing and under billing and in support of that contention he has relied on the decision of the High Court of Kerala in O.P.No.5930/1985 dated 5.8.1987 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that “If there is a mistake in the categorization or there is  under billing it is always open to the respondents to rectify their mistake and to demand proper charges due from the consumer”  The learned counsel for the opp.parties therefore would argue that Ext.P1 is not liable to be  set aside or quashed.

The complainant would contend that under Regulation 18[8] of the Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005 the opp.parties are not  entitled  to recover any arrears after a period of 2 years from the date when such arrears become 1^st due Ext. P1  relates to the period from 12/2002 to 4/04 and the demand was made on 15.11.2005.  So it is obvious that part of the amount claimed relates to the period beyond 2 years.  The learned counsel for the opp.parties would argue that the claim was made before the expiry of 2 years and that PW.1 himself has admitted in cross examination that the bill was issued after 18 months.   That argument cannot be accepted.   What is contemplated in Regulation 18[[8]  is that no claim for arrears can be made after 2 years when that amount becomes 1^st due.   Ext.P1 relates to the period from 12/02 to 4/04 and so part of the amount ie. the arrear prior to 15.11.2003 relates to the period beyond 2 years which under the provision of Regulation 18[8] is not realizable.

          According to the complainant though he is entitled to one months time  under Regulation 24[5] for payment Ext.P1 was  issued on 15.11.2005 fixing last date as 29.11.2005 which is against the statute and so there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties.  When statute says that one months time is to be given the opp.parties have no right to reduce the same and fix a date.

It has come in evidence that Ext.P1 was issued without following procedure laid down in this regard.  DW.1 has also admitted it in cross examination.   The tariff change in this case which was to be made by the Asst. Exe. Engineer was made by the meter reader.  But it cannot be said that it caused any prejudice  to the complainant.  However when the meter reader changed tariff from 7 B to 7A  from May 2004, the issuance of bill on 15.11.05 is deficiency in service.  No penal interest is charged is no reason to say that there is no deficiency  in service.  For  all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Point found accordingly

In the result the complaint is allowed in part, quashing Ext.P1 and directing opp.party to issue fresh bill in accordance with Regulation 18[8] and 24[5].   The opp.parties are   further directed to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs which opp.party 1 can realize from those who are responsible.

The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

          Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2009

                                               .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Georgekutty

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Copy of bill dated 15.11.2005.

P2. – Registration certificate

P3. _ Copy of agreement

P4. – Agreement original

List of witnesses for the opp.party.

DW.1. – Kenny Philip