Date of filing : 24-06-2010
Date of order : 10-02-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
C.C. 149/2010
Dated this, the 10th day of February 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
Gopalakrishna Bhat,
S/o.Govinda Bhat,
Abbemane House, Kodlamogaru.Po, } Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk & District.
(Adv. P. Ishwara Bhat, Kasaragod)
1. The Secretary, } Opposite parties
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Depty Chief Engineer,
Electricity Circle, Kasaragod.Po.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section Vorkady,
Po.Vorkady, Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Facts of the case can be summarized as under.
Complainant applied for shifting the electricity supply of consumer No.5083 of Vorkady section to the newly constructed shed on 1-1-2010. Thereafter the 3rd opposite party inspected the shed and satisfied that the shed is in accordance with the specification. This connection is for agricultural purpose. The reason for shifting arose due to the newly dug bore well because the open well hither to used does not have sufficient quantum of water and the summer has passed without irrigation. Inspite of repeated written reminder to 2nd opposite party and Executive Engineer they neither moved for shifting nor gave any reply. This amounts to deficiency in service. 3rd opposite party on 14-6-2010 gave a reply stating that complainant is liable to pay a penal bill for unauthorized use of electricity provided for agricultural purpose to domestic purpose amounting to``54,000/- and therefore connection will not be shifted unless the penal bill is paid. Therefore the complaint claiming a compensation of `62,000/- towards the loss of agriculture by draught and mental agony and suffering and towards the costs.
2. According to opposite parties complaint is not maintainable since the complaint is against the unauthorized assessment for misusing the energy provided for agricultural purpose to domestic purpose and it squarely falls within the purview of Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. On merits it is the case of opposite parties that on receiving the application for shifting the electricity connection provided to consumer No. 5083 the 3rd opposite party inspected the premises and informed the complainant that it is not feasible to shift supply to the new premises as per rule as provided under clause 21(5) of the Terms and Conditions of supply. Hence the complainant has been advised to apply for a new connection after clearing the dues. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A9 marked. Complainant cross-examined by the counsel for opposite parties. On the side of opposite parties. Exts B1 to B4 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused.
4. The specific case of the complainant is that his application for shifting the electricity meter provided in Consumer No.5083 is declined by the opposite party and thereby he sustained loss due to lack of irrigation. According to opposite parties the connection cannot be shifted in view of Rules 21(5) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply.
5. But we are unable to accept the contention of opposite parties that the connection cannot be shifted. Because rule 21(5) nowhere says that the electricity connection provided to one premise cannot be shifted to another part of the same premise. It only bars the shifting of electricity connection from one premise to another. Therefore we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not shifting the electricity connection 5083 from the present location to the newly proposed location of the same premises. However, the complainant shall bear the expenses for the same.
6. The opposite parties raised another contention regarding the maintainability of the complaint in view of the statutory/Mandatory provisions contain U/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. In this context the learned counsel for complainant Sri. Ishwara Bhat submitted that the complainant is not seeking any relief from this forum against the penal bill issued in Consumer No.5083.
7. But regarding the maintainability of the complaint before the Consumer FORA we make it clear that the Consumer FORA can entertain a complaint even against an assessment made U/s 126 of Electricity Act 2003 unless the Consumer file an appeal U/s 127 of the said Act. Law in this case is settled down by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another V Anwar Ali (2008) CTJ 837 (CP) (NCDRC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.4734/2007 directed the Hon’ble National Commission to consider the questions whether the Consumer FORA have jurisdiction to deal with the grievances of the consumer of electricity in case of deficiency in service by the electricity supplied after enactment of Electricity Act 2003?
8. The Hon’ble National Commission by Majority of decision decided as follows:
“(i) In case of final assessment order passed U/s 126 of the Electricity Act if a consumer is aggrieved, he can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. However, he has option to file complaint under the Consumer Protection Act or to file appeal under Section 127 of the Electricity Act. However before entertaining the complaint the Consumer Fora would direct the consumer to deposit an amount equal to 1/3rd of the assessed amount.
(ii) Further against the Final order passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, on complaint can be entertained by the Consumer FORA.”
9. In the case no hand it is seen that no final order is passed by the assessing authority and the Exts A2 and the revised Ext.A5 are only provisional invoices. Hence the complainant is at liberty to approach the Consumer Forum if he is served with the final assessment order U/s 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. However, it is not the issue in this complaint.
10. Therefore we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not shifting the electricity connection No.5083 to the new shed constructed in the same premises. This will not prejudice or any way affect the right of the opposite parties for the realization of the penal bill issued to the complainant against the unauthorized use of the electricity connection if he is legally liable to pay the same.
In the result complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to shift the electricity connection No.5083 to the new pump shed constructed by the complainant in the same premises. Complainant shall bear the necessary expenses required for the same. Time for compliance is limited to 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite parties shall pay a compensation of `20,000/- to the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony suffered by him. Opposite parties also directed to pay `2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Photocopy of receipt
A2. Photocopy of provisional Bill
A3. Photocopy of letter sent by OP No.3 to complainant.
A4. Photocopy of letter sent by OP NO.3 to complainant.
A5. Photocopy of bill dt.21-6-2010.
A6 Photocopy of bill dt. 3-2-20109
A7.Photocopy of bill dt. 3-8-2009
A8. Photocopy of bill dt. 5-10-2010.
A9. Site Mahazar.
B1. Photocopy of site Mahazor
B2. Photocopy of relevant pages of notification dt.27-11-07.
B3. Photocopy of letter went by complainant to OP No.2
B4. Meter reading details of Consumer No.5300 & 5083.
PW1. Gopalakrishna Bhat.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
