DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.22/2009
Sherli, W/o.Mani, Bose Nivas, Vilayanchathanur, Thenkurissi, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.M.Alimuthu & U.Kumarsaman)
Vs
1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Division, Chittur.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Koduvayur. Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President
Case of the complainant in short:-
Complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.9247. The industrial connection was effected from 20/03/2001 as per minimum guarantee scheme. The connection was given to the complainant for industrial purpose, but the complainant could not run his industry due to unavailability of raw materials. Hence the complainant filed an application before the 3rd opposite party on 23/06/08 to disconnect the above
connection and also applied for a new connection for domestic purpose for the same building. Accordingly new connection was provided vide consumer No.13454. The grievance of the complainant is that he was issued with a short assessment bill for Rs.18,616/- for the period March 2006 to February 2008 to be paid before 20/11/2008. The bill was issued as per the report of the audit wing. It was stated by the opposite parties that, on inspection by the Assistant Engineer in the month of March 2008, it was noticed that the industrial connection was used for commercial purpose. They also derived at a conclusion that since consumption in the light metre is higher than in the power metre during the period March 2006 to February 2008, the connection may be utilized for commercial purpose. Accordingly, a bill for Rs.18,616/- was issued. Final bill was issued on 29/10/2008. Bill amount was issued under tariff 7A. Complainant submits that before issuance of the final bill, no provisional bill was issued by the opposite parties. No opportunity was granted to the complainant for filing any objections. Hence it is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence complaint is filed to set aside the disputed bill. Opposite parties filed version contending the following. The 3rd opposite party filed version for and on behalf of the all opposite parties denying the alleged deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant was an industrial consumer as per consumer No.9247. The service connection was effected on 20/03/01 under LT 4 Tariff for industry. Further the opposite party stated that the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.698/- per month as minimum guarantee for a period of 7 years. The averment of the complainant that the industry could not be run for the purpose the service connection was availed is not true since there were consumption on the power meter to an average of 184 units per month for the period 3/01 to 12/01, 128 units per month for 11/02 to 1/03 – 126 units per month for
6/03 to 12/03 and 170 units per month for 1/04 to 6/04. For the rest of the periods from 1/02 to 10/02, 2/03 to 5/03 and 7/04 onwards the consumption was almost nil in the power meter which was not due to any lapses on the part of opposite party. The opposite parties stated that the complainant claims that the premises was rented out for domestic purpose which itself is a misuse.
On inspection during 3/08 the Assistant Engineer noticed that the industrial service connection was being used for commercial purpose and subsequently as requested by the complainant the service connection was dismantled in 3/08. Also the complainant applied for a new service connection for commercial purpose to the same premises and subsequently remitted CD and OYEC and secured the connection for commercial purpose. The opposite parties stated that the complainant had not applied for domestic connection and no such service connection had been effected to the complainant’s premises. Also the tariff change from commercial to domestic as requested by the complainant cannot be admitted since the premises is still being used for commercial activities related to toddy business as learned during the inspection. There was consistent increased consumption on light meter and meager consumption on power meter from 3/06 to 2/08. It is also stated that the short assessment bill pertains to the consumer No.9247 (LT4) and not consumer No.13454(LT-7b). The short assessment bill of Rs.18616/- is the account of the difference in rate between the industrial tariff LT-4 and the tariff LT-7A charged for misuse of the industrial premises for commercial use from 3/06 to 2/08. The short assessment bill was issued on 29.10.08 with last date for remittance 20.11.08. The petitioner had submitted her contentions challenging the bill on 18.11.08, to which a detailed reply dtd.16.01.09 was given by the Assistant Engineer. Again the complainant challenged the bill by another complaint dt.19/01/09 requesting to consider the issue in the adalath. According on 11/02/09, the adalath chaired by the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Palakkad
considered the complaint and heard the petitioner. The petitioner was convinced of the ground on which the short assessment bill was issued and he was offered with instalment facility for settlement of arrears. Further there was no response from the complainant. Hence the say of the complainant that she was not given adequate opportunity to be heard is wrong. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. The opposite parties filed chief affidavit and documents. Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are; Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issues 1 & 2: It is an admitted fact by the opposite parties that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No.9247 and 13454. Opposite parties has contented that the disputed bill for the period March 2006 to February 2008 was issued on the basis of the report of the audit wing and further inspection of the premises by the Assistant Engineer. Opposite party alleges misuse of industrial connection for commercial purpose. On going through the evidence on record it can be seen that even though opposite party contented that on inspection of the premises of the complainant misuse was noted, no documents pertaining to the said inspection was produced before the forum. Moreover the opposite parties has not followed the procedural formalities contemplated under Regulation 50 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
As per the provisions the assessing officer has to first provisionally assess the electricity charges payable by the consumer. This order of provisional assessment shall be served upon the person and the person is entitled to file objections if any regarding the provisional assessment. The assessing officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the consumer for hearing. Only following these procedural formalities a final order can be issued.
In the present case it is crystal clear that these formalities are not followed. The contention of the opposite party that the matter was considered in the adalath and therefore reasonable opportunity for hearing was given to the consumer is not at all acceptable. The Electricity Act, 2003 no where provides that hearing in adalath is in par with complying Section 126 provisions.
Hence we hold the view that the bill issued without following the mandatory provision is illegal and hence opposite parties are liable for the deficiency in service on their part.
In the result complaint allowed. The disputed bill is cancelled. Amount if any already paid to be adjusted in the future bills. There shall be no order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2010 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix Exhibit marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Photo copy of final bill Ext.A2 – Copy of letter dt.23/6/08 sent by complainant to 3rd opposite party
Ext.A3 – Letter dtd.17.01.09 sent by 3rd opposite party to complainant Ext.A4 – Agreement Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties Ext.B1(Series) 5 Nos – Attested copies of meter reading register of con No.9247 Ext.B2 – Attested copy of audit report Ext.B3 – Attested copy of letter dt.16.01.09 sent by 3rd opposite party to complainant | 
