IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No.150/2010 (Filed on 02.11.2010)
Between:
Sreekumar,
Kottoor Kizhakkethil House,
Payyanamon.P.O.,
Konni Thazham Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk.
(By Adv. R. Gopikrishnan) ….. Complainant
And:
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section,
Konni.P.O. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief against the opposite parties from this Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that he is a beneficiary of the electric connection provided by the opposite parties in the name of his father Mr. Ponnappan Pillai vide consumer number 14224-1. The said connection is a domestic connection and he is using the said connection since from the death of his father. The complainant is not a defaulter. While so, the complainant obtained sanction from the 2nd opposite party for using additional electricity for certain construction purpose by paying ` 335. The said sanction was for 2 days from 02.07.2010 onwards. While the said permission was in force, some officials of the opposite parties inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared a site mahazar alleging unauthorized using of electricity. Even though, the complainant had showed the papers relating to the sanction issued by the opposite parties, they ignored the complainant. Thereafter the complainant was served with an additional electricity bill for ` 21,318 on 13.07.2010. It is also noticed from the bill that the complainant’s tariff was also changed from LT IA to LT 7A. Thereafter the complainant filed an objection against the said bill and complainant was also heard by the opposite parties. After the hearing opposite parties revised the provisional invoice and a final bill for ` 18,918 dated 20.10.2010 was given to the complainant. According to the complainant, the calculations in the bill is wrong and the change of tariff is illegal and the opposite parties are not entitled to collect any amount on the basis of the final bill issued by the opposite parties. Subsequent to the said final bill, they also issued some more bills to the complainant under LT VIIA tariff. Certain bills were paid by the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay any amount under LT VIIA tariff as he is using the electricity only for domestic purpose. Complainant also made request for changing the tariff but opposite parties told that the request for change of tariff will be considered only after remitting the final bill dated 20.10.2010. Opposite parties also demanded additional cash deposit from the complainant. All the above said acts of the opposite parties are illegal and deficiency in service, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for setting aside the impugned bills and for the realization of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties along with 10% interest and a cost of ` 10,000. Complainant also prays for an order directing opposite parties for changing the complainant’s tariff from LTVIIA to LT 1A.
3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: According to the opposite parties, the complainant is a beneficiary of the electric connection provided by the opposite parties under LT IA tariff and they are also admitted that they have given sanction for using additional electricity for two days for using a 3 KW welding machine from 02.07.2010 to 03.07.2010. While so, the divisional squad of the opposite parties conducted a surprise inspection on 02.07.2010 at the complainant’s premises and prepared a site mahazar at the presence of the complainant. At the inspection, they found that the complainant had connected a total load of 4695 watts against the sanctioned load of 2585. In the inspection they also found that complainant had connected a sander and drilling machine. According to the opposite parties, the site condition revealed that the complainant is engaged in furniture work continuously for several years and the complainant had been using electricity unauthorizedly. Therefore they issued a provisional invoice for ` 21,318. Against the said provisional invoice the complainant filed his objection and he was also heard. After considering the objections, opposite parties revised the provisional invoice of ` 21,318 to ` 18,918. The complainant’s tariff was also changed with effect from 02.06.2010 based on the surprise inspection dated 02.07.2010. Complainant has not so far submitted any proper documents for converting his tariff to LT 1A. Those steps and actions taken by the opposite parties are in conformity with Electricity Act and Rules and there is no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Since the complainant acted against the rules, the complainant is liable to pay the amount demanded by the opposite parties. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether the complaint is allowable or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A19 and B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that he had been served with an illegal bill for Rs.21,318 under LT VIIA tariff alleging that he had unauthorised connected load in excess of his authorized connected load. It is also alleged that his tariff from LT IA was converted to LT VIIA illegally. All the above said acts were done by the opposite parties on the basis of the surprise inspection conducted by them. Though the complainant had obtained permission for using additional electricity for certain construction works, opposite parties didn’t considered the said permission. Opposite parties did not given much importance to the complainant’s objection. On getting the provisional invoice, the complainant filed his objection. But they have revised the original bill by reducing a small amount and issued the final bill for Rs.18.918. They also issued further bills under LT VIIA tariff ignoring the fact that the complainant’s connection is a domestic connection. Opposite parties also failed to convert his tariff to LT IA in spite of the complainant’s request. According to the complainant all the above said acts of the opposite parties is illegal and hence he is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the opposite parties.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 19 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A19. Ext.A1 is the provisional invoice dated 12.07.2010 for ` 21,318 issued by the 2nd opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext.A2 series (A2 to A2(b) are 3 cash receipts issued by the opposite parties in connection with the application submitted for getting sanction for using additional electricity. Ext.A3 to A6 are demand notice-cum disconnection notices issued by the opposite parties under LT VIIA tariff subsequent to the inspection and issuance of Ext.A1 provisional invoice. Ext.A7 is the final bill dated 20.10.2010 issued by the opposite party. Ext.A8 is the copy of the application dated 08.11.2010 submitted by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party for changing his tariff from VIIA to 1A tariff. Ext.A9 is the postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A8. Ext..A10 to A13 are the cash receipt issued by the opposite parties. Ext.A14 to A17 are the bills issued under LT VII A tariff to the complainant from 02.10.2010 to 27.06.2011. Ext.A18 and A19 are two electricity bills under LT 1A tariff issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
8. Opposite parties contention is that they have conducted an inspection at the premises of the complainant on 02.07.2010 and detected unauthorized connected load and also found that complainant is using the electricity for commercial purpose by using the electricity for manufacturing furniture at the time of inspection. Complainant showed the sanction issued by the opposite parties for using additional electricity but the sanction was given for using a welding machine whereas drilling machine and sander machine were found in the premises. They have also noticed that manufacturing of wooden furniture is going on. So they have prepared a site mahazar in the presence of the complainant and on the basis of the site mahazar they have issued a provisional invoice for ` 21,318 under LT VII A tariff and also they have converted the complainant’s tariff from LT 1A to LT VIIA as the complainant is using electricity for commercial purpose instead of the authorized domestic purpose. Thereafter complainant was given an opportunity for hearing and on the basis of the hearing the provisional invoice for ` 21,318 was revised and a final bill for ` 18,918 was issued to him. Thereafter regular bills under LT VIIA was issued to the complainant. They acted as per the provisions of Kerala Electricity Act and hence there is no illegality or deficiency of service from their part. So the complainant is liable to pay the bill amounts. Since the complainant has not complied the required formalities they have not changed the tariff and if he complies the necessary formalities they are ready to change the complainant’s tariff to LT VIIA to LT 1A.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the authorized officer of the opposite parties filed a proof affidavit along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, authorized officer was examined as DW1 and the documents marked as B1 and B2. B1 is the copy of application dated 01.07.2010 submitted by the complainant for getting sanction for using welding machine for 2 days. Ext.B2 is the copy of the site mahazar dated 02.07.2010 prepared by the opposite parties in connection with the inspection of the complainant’s premises.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. On the perusal of the materials on record we found that the complainant’s electric connection is a domestic connection till the inspection of the opposite parties and before the conversion of the tariff by the opposite parties on the basis of Ext.B2 site mahazar. Opposite parties are relying Ext.B2 site mahazar for justifying their actions. Their argument is that the complainant is using electricity for manufacturing furniture which is a commercial purpose. But they have not adduced any cogent evidence to prove that the complainant is conducting a furniture manufacturing unit. Opposite parties has not showed any details of the furniture found in the premises of the complainant. Opposite parties also failed to prove that the drilling machine and sander machine found in the premises of the complainant is solely designed for furniture manufacturing. Even DW1 Asst. Executive Engineer is not aware of the uses of a drilling machine and a sander machine. It is clear from the deposition of DW1, which is as follows:- “km³UÀ sajo-\n I«nwKv ho ^näv sNbvXv I«-dmbn D]-tbm-Kn-¡mtam? AtX-¸än F\n-¡-dn-hnà (A). km³UÀ sajo-\n ss{K³UnMv ho D]-tbm-Kn¨v ss{K³Uv sN¿mtam?. F\n¡v AtX-¸än Adnbnà (A)”.
11. Moreover, opposite parties allegation is that they found unauthorized connected load in the premises of the complainant. But the oral deposition of DW1 is against the said allegation. The relevant portion of the deposition of DW1 is as follows:- “A\p-hmZw \ÂIn-bn-cp¶ 2 Znhkw lÀPn-¡m-c\v GI-tZiw 5KW hsc D]-tbm-Kn-¡m-am-bn-cp-¶p. Ext.B2 mahazar {]Imcw lÀPn-¡m-c\v inspection dateþÂ 4745 watts connected load am{Xta Dm-bn-cp-¶p-Åp. (Q&A)”. If that be so what is the reason for issuing Ext.A1 bill alleging unauthorized connected load.
12. The other allegation is that the complainant is using electricity for manufacturing wooden furniture. But Ext.B2 site mahazar or the deposition of DW1 does not show anything to substantiate the above said allegation. It is clear from the depositor of DW1, which is as follows:- “^ÀWn-¨-dnsâ hni-Z-hn-hcw al-Êdn ]d-ªn-«n-à (Q&A)…………ImW-s¸«p F¶v ]d-bp¶ ^ÀWn¨dnsâ ]g¡w tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«nÔ. Opposite parties are relying on Ext.B2 mahazar. But the mahazar is not attested by any independent witnesses. As per electricity rules site mahazar shall be prepared in the presence of an independent witness and he should be also an attester to the site mahazar. Since the primary requirement is not satisfied, Ext.B1 mahazar cannot be accepted in evidence. Apart from the above defects, the description in the said mahazar also did not support the allegations of the opposite party. In the circumstance, we don’t find any reason to disbelieve the contention of the complaint that the furnitures are his own furniture removed from the house in connection with the welding work and the sander and drilling machine are the ancillary equipments for the welding works. Therefore, we find that complainant has not committed any illegal acts as alleged by the opposite parties and hence the impugned bill are liable to be set aside and the conversion of LT 1A to LT VIIA tariff made by the opposite parties are also liable to be set aside. Therefore this complaint can be allowed with modifications:
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed with modifications, thereby Ext.A7 final bill dated 20.10.2010 issued by opposite party for ` 18,318 and all bills issued to the complainant under LT VIIA tariff are hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to convert the complainant’s tariff to LT 1A with effect from 02.07.2010 and issue fresh bills under LT 1A tariff instead of the bills issued under LT VIIA tariff. Opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of ` 3,000 (Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation and ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost to the complainant. Opposite parties are also directed to return the whole amount collected in excess under LT VIIA tariff along with the amount deposited by the complainant as per the order in I.A.No.157/2010. In the light of the above order, I.A.157/2010 and I.A.192/2010 are also disposed. Opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of February, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Sreekumar
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Provisional invoice dated 12.07.2010 for ` 21,318 issued by the 2nd
opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A2 series (A2 to A2(b) : 3 cash receipts issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
A3 : Bill dated 03.08.2010 for ` 624 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A4 : Bill dated 03.08.2010 for ` 2,106 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A5 : Bill dated 02.10.2010 for ` 1544 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A6 : Bill dated 20. 10.2010 for `18,918 issued from the 2nd opposite party
to the complainant.
A7 : Final bill dated 20.10.2010 issued by the opposite party.
A8 : Photocopy of the application dated 08.11.2010 submitted by the
complainant to the 2nd opposite party.
A9 : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext.A8.
A10 to A13 : Cash receipts issued by the opposite parties.
A14 : Bill dated 02.12.2010 for ` 4,066 issued by the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A15 : Bill dated 24.02.2011 for ` 5,416 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A16 : Bill dated 27.04.2011 for ` 4,780 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A17 : Bill dated 27.06.2011 for ` 4,943 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A18 : Bill dated 03.04.2010 for ` 488 issued from the 2nd opposite party to
the complainant.
A19 : Bill dated 01.10.2008 for ` 236 issued from the 2nd opposite party to the
complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : B.S. Suma
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Photocopy of application dated 01.07.2010 issued by the complainant
B2 : Photocopy of the mahazar dated 02.07.2010 prepared by the
opposite parties.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Sreekumar, Kottoor Kizhakkethil House, Payyanamon.P.O.,
Konni Thazham Village, Kozhencherry Taluk.
(2) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) The Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Konni.P.O.
(4) The Stock File.
