BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 142/1998 Filed on 17/3/1998
Dated: 30..05..2009 Complainant: The Dale View, Punnelal, Poovachal, a Charitable Society, registered under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955, represented by its Director C. Christudas. (By Adv. M.R. Anandakuttan)
Opposite parties: The Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06..07..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
This case remanded by the Hon'ble State commission vide Order dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1381/99 – with direction to dispose the matter in accordance with the findings recorded by the Munsiff Court. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that opposite parties having illegally disconnected electric supply to the complainant's establishment and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. There was loss due to the death of chicken, drying up of agriculture and plant nursery, payment to employees and under other heads. The complainant society was started in 1978 when the work was mainly agricultural operations. But afterwards there got electric connection and the consumer No.is 3818. In 1993, the society started a poultry farm including a hatchery unit and another connection was obtained which is consumer No.5798. In 1994 the officials of the KSEB came to the premises and suo-moto amalgamated both the numbers and bills were issued under consumer No.3818. While so, on 16/5/1996 the officials from APTS came there and they found on inspection that agricultural tariff and poultry farm tariff are on different slabs and they have charged under fair assessment and an arrear bill for Rs.1,55,479/- was presented. This was for the period from 11/88 to 5/96. The assessment was arbitrary, and no data has been provided. There was appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, who ordered that the re-assessment shall be only from 8/93 to 5/96, and the amount was reduced to Rs.59,377/-. It is also not on the basis of data or actual facts. The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount as per bill dated 5/12/1996. Till that date all bills have been regularly paid by the complainant, but without notice the supply was disconnected causing serious damage to the poultry farm, plant and nursery and agricultural operations. The complainant was compelled to file O.S 2058/1987 before Munsiff's Court and there was an order for restoring electric supply. The request made by the complainant for providing separate meters under separate tariff, was not allowed till date. The disconnection was illegal. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,99,000/- to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant has filed an Original Suit before Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram as O.S No. 2058/1987 for the same cause of action and had obtained an interim injunction also. The complainant availed service connection for consumer No.5798 on 17/12/1992 under LT V tariff. This was a single phase service, which was dismantled on 25/5/1993 as per the request of the consumer. The statement that KSEB amalgamated the connection 3818 and 5798 is wrong. The officials of Anti Power Theft Squad and KSEB inspected the society on 16/5/1996 and found that an additional load is seen connected unauthorisedly to consumer No.3818. The APTS had penalised the consumer for this unauthorised load. On the day of inspection by APTS the following irregularities were noticed and instructions were given by them as follows:
The consumer had unauthorisedly extended the supply to the following premises using jointed PVC wire in a dangerous manner, 200 meters from the consumer.
A water pump having a connected load of 2.2kw.
For a water pump located in the well of the school premises having a connected load of 1 HP.
For running a printing press in the school building having a C/L of 1HP + 1HP + 1No.pp + 14Nos.of 40w lamps = 5.5kw say6kw.
A hatchery is also seen connected to the LT V tariff. This should have connected separately under LT IV tariff. APTS instructed opposite parties to assess @ Rs.48/kw per day for a period of 6 months prior to the date of inspection till the regularisation of additional load or dismantling of the additional load. Accordingly the bill dated 15/6/1996 for Rs.1,55,479/- was issued. The society made a representation before Deputy Chief Engineer and accordingly the above invoice was revised to Rs.59,377/-. The said invoice remained unpaid by the complainant. Hence the consumer No.3818 was disconnected on 17/6/1997. The above referred bill for Rs.59,377/- was again revised to Rs.1,09,201/- as per the direction of the Board. The said bill was prepared as per the relevant rules and regulations prevalent and there is no illegal involvement in issuing the same and disconnecting the supply for non-payment. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether this complaint is maintainable in view of the judgment in O.S.305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and of the order in IA 1554/2001 in O.S 2058/97 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
Point No.(i) : This case remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission with direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with the finding recorded by the Munsiff Court. The main allegation in the complainant is that opposite parties have illegally disconnected electric supply to the complainant (establishment) and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. The main contention in the version is that for the very same cause of action the complainant has filed O.S 2058/87 before Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. After this case was remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission vide Judgment dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1881/1999, opposite parties have furnished, the judgment in O.S 305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the order in IA 1554/2001 in O.S 2058/1997 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant society contends that the opposite parties have illegally disconnected electric supply to the establishment and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. There was loss due to the death of chicken, drying up of agriculture and plant nursery, payment to employees and under other heads. It is uttered by the complainant that the said society started in 1978 when work was mainly for agricultural operations. But afterwards, there got electric connection and the consumer No.is 3818. In 1993 the society started a poultry farm including a hatchery unit and another connection was obtained which is consumer No.5798. In 1994 the officials of the KSEB came to the premises and suo-moto amalgamated both number and bills were issued under consumer No.3818. While so on 16/5/1996 the officials from APTS and KSEB visited the society and they found on inspection that agricultural tariff and poultry farm are on different class; on the basis of which the society was issued an invoice dated 4/6/1996 for Rs.1,55,479/- for the period from 11/88 to 5/96, without any split up details and upon representation made by the complainant to concerned authorities a revised invoice dated 5/12/1996 for Rs.59,377/- was issued to the complainant without any basis. Submission by the complainant is that all bills issued to the society except the bill dated 5/12/1996 have been paid, that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per bill dated 5/12/1996 and that without notice the supply was disconnected causing damage to the poultry farm, plant, nursery and agricultural operations. The main contention in the version was that for the same cause of action the complainant has filed O.S 2058/1997 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is made clear by the Hon'ble State commission in its order dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1881/1999 that if the Munsiff Court records a finding holding that there was justification for disconnection this Forum is not competent to award any compensation recording a different finding that opposite parties without any justification unauthorisedly disconnected the connection of consumer No.3818. It is to be highlighted that the same complainant had filed a suit as O.S 2058/1987 against KSEB authorities for injunction simplicities as well as mandatory injunction. The injunction simplicities was aimed at prohibiting the disconnection of electricity supply by the opposite parties and the mandatory injunction was aimed at a direction by court to ensure un-interrupted supply of electricity to the petitioner, pending adjudication of the disputes in connection with an alleged excess bill for Rs.1,09,201/-. After filing the said suit complainant moved an amendment application (IA 1554/2001) to incorporate a prayer for the grant of declaration that the excess bill is illegal and void and the same was allowed by the Munsiff Court. Since the incorporation of relief of declaration in the plaint was taken out the Suit (O.S 2058/97) from jurisdictional ambit of the Munsiff Court, the court returned the complaint under order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before proper Court. Accordingly O.S No.305/2001 was filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for declaration and injunction. As per order dated 27/7/2005 in O.S 305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, there was justification for disconnection. The finding recorded by the Sub Court is that “Plaintiff society had failed to pay Rs.1,09,201/- as per the invoice dated 14/10/1997 and due to the non-payment of the aforesaid bill the defendants disconnected the service connection on 17/7/1997 after giving due notice to the plaintiff. The said action of the defendants cannot be considered as illegal or unlawful or arbitrary. Since the plaintiff society is legally bound to pay the charge for supply of electrical energy and also for the misuse of the energy done by it. In this case the plaintiff society has failed to fulfill its legal obligation and hence it cannot be heard to say that there was malafide intention on the part of defendants. If that be so, no declaration as prayed for with respect to the invoice can be allowed. So also the question of re-connecting supply of electrical energy to the consumer No.3818 does not arise”.
In the version it is stated that for the very same cause of action complainant has filed O.S 2058/97 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is pertinent to note that the said O.S 2058/97 has been renumbered as O.S 305/2001 when filed before the Sub Court. The cause of action in O.S.2058/97 and renumbered O.S 305/2001 as well as this complaint is one and the same and judgment in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 originally filed before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram has already been delivered. As per the finding recorded by the Sub Court in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 there is justification for disconnection of supply of energy. In view of the finding recorded by the Sub Court in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 originally filed before the Munsiff Court, as well as the finding recorded by the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal 1881/99 that if the Munsiff Court records a finding holding that there was justification for disconnection, this Forum is not competent to award any compensation recording a different finding, we find the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above finding, the point No.(ii) requires no consideration. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of May, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.142/98 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : C. Christudas II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Certificate No.78/98 dated 30/10/98 issued by Sr. Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Aryanad. P2 : Copy of list of plants damaged P3 : Photographs and negatives of damaged plants.
Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : G. Saseendran
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Letter dated 16/5/96 from Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS. KSEB. D2 : Invoice amount from 11/88 to 5/96. D3 : Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Tvpm Order No.Vig-AV3565/96 dt. 27/9/1996. D4 : Copy of details of revised invoice. D5 : Final revised bill dated 14/10/1997 D6 : Letter No.plg.com.3042/96 dated 19/8/97 from the Chief Engineer (Thermal & Commercial) O/o Board Secretariat, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Tvpm.
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 142/1998 Filed on 17/3/1998
Dated: 30..05..2009 Complainant: The Dale View, Punnelal, Poovachal, a Charitable Society, registered under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955, represented by its Director C. Christudas. (By Adv. M.R. Anandakuttan)
Opposite parties: The Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 06..07..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
This case remanded by the Hon'ble State commission vide Order dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1381/99 – with direction to dispose the matter in accordance with the findings recorded by the Munsiff Court. The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that opposite parties having illegally disconnected electric supply to the complainant's establishment and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. There was loss due to the death of chicken, drying up of agriculture and plant nursery, payment to employees and under other heads. The complainant society was started in 1978 when the work was mainly agricultural operations. But afterwards there got electric connection and the consumer No.is 3818. In 1993, the society started a poultry farm including a hatchery unit and another connection was obtained which is consumer No.5798. In 1994 the officials of the KSEB came to the premises and suo-moto amalgamated both the numbers and bills were issued under consumer No.3818. While so, on 16/5/1996 the officials from APTS came there and they found on inspection that agricultural tariff and poultry farm tariff are on different slabs and they have charged under fair assessment and an arrear bill for Rs.1,55,479/- was presented. This was for the period from 11/88 to 5/96. The assessment was arbitrary, and no data has been provided. There was appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, who ordered that the re-assessment shall be only from 8/93 to 5/96, and the amount was reduced to Rs.59,377/-. It is also not on the basis of data or actual facts. The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount as per bill dated 5/12/1996. Till that date all bills have been regularly paid by the complainant, but without notice the supply was disconnected causing serious damage to the poultry farm, plant and nursery and agricultural operations. The complainant was compelled to file O.S 2058/1987 before Munsiff's Court and there was an order for restoring electric supply. The request made by the complainant for providing separate meters under separate tariff, was not allowed till date. The disconnection was illegal. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.4,99,000/- to the complainant.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant has filed an Original Suit before Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram as O.S No. 2058/1987 for the same cause of action and had obtained an interim injunction also. The complainant availed service connection for consumer No.5798 on 17/12/1992 under LT V tariff. This was a single phase service, which was dismantled on 25/5/1993 as per the request of the consumer. The statement that KSEB amalgamated the connection 3818 and 5798 is wrong. The officials of Anti Power Theft Squad and KSEB inspected the society on 16/5/1996 and found that an additional load is seen connected unauthorisedly to consumer No.3818. The APTS had penalised the consumer for this unauthorised load. On the day of inspection by APTS the following irregularities were noticed and instructions were given by them as follows:
The consumer had unauthorisedly extended the supply to the following premises using jointed PVC wire in a dangerous manner, 200 meters from the consumer.
A water pump having a connected load of 2.2kw.
For a water pump located in the well of the school premises having a connected load of 1 HP.
For running a printing press in the school building having a C/L of 1HP + 1HP + 1No.pp + 14Nos.of 40w lamps = 5.5kw say6kw.
A hatchery is also seen connected to the LT V tariff. This should have connected separately under LT IV tariff. APTS instructed opposite parties to assess @ Rs.48/kw per day for a period of 6 months prior to the date of inspection till the regularisation of additional load or dismantling of the additional load. Accordingly the bill dated 15/6/1996 for Rs.1,55,479/- was issued. The society made a representation before Deputy Chief Engineer and accordingly the above invoice was revised to Rs.59,377/-. The said invoice remained unpaid by the complainant. Hence the consumer No.3818 was disconnected on 17/6/1997. The above referred bill for Rs.59,377/- was again revised to Rs.1,09,201/- as per the direction of the Board. The said bill was prepared as per the relevant rules and regulations prevalent and there is no illegal involvement in issuing the same and disconnecting the supply for non-payment. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether this complaint is maintainable in view of the judgment in O.S.305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and of the order in IA 1554/2001 in O.S 2058/97 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?
Point No.(i) : This case remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission with direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with the finding recorded by the Munsiff Court. The main allegation in the complainant is that opposite parties have illegally disconnected electric supply to the complainant (establishment) and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. The main contention in the version is that for the very same cause of action the complainant has filed O.S 2058/87 before Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. After this case was remanded by the Hon'ble State Commission vide Judgment dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1881/1999, opposite parties have furnished, the judgment in O.S 305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the order in IA 1554/2001 in O.S 2058/1997 of the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant society contends that the opposite parties have illegally disconnected electric supply to the establishment and thereby caused huge loss to the complainant. There was loss due to the death of chicken, drying up of agriculture and plant nursery, payment to employees and under other heads. It is uttered by the complainant that the said society started in 1978 when work was mainly for agricultural operations. But afterwards, there got electric connection and the consumer No.is 3818. In 1993 the society started a poultry farm including a hatchery unit and another connection was obtained which is consumer No.5798. In 1994 the officials of the KSEB came to the premises and suo-moto amalgamated both number and bills were issued under consumer No.3818. While so on 16/5/1996 the officials from APTS and KSEB visited the society and they found on inspection that agricultural tariff and poultry farm are on different class; on the basis of which the society was issued an invoice dated 4/6/1996 for Rs.1,55,479/- for the period from 11/88 to 5/96, without any split up details and upon representation made by the complainant to concerned authorities a revised invoice dated 5/12/1996 for Rs.59,377/- was issued to the complainant without any basis. Submission by the complainant is that all bills issued to the society except the bill dated 5/12/1996 have been paid, that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per bill dated 5/12/1996 and that without notice the supply was disconnected causing damage to the poultry farm, plant, nursery and agricultural operations. The main contention in the version was that for the same cause of action the complainant has filed O.S 2058/1997 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is made clear by the Hon'ble State commission in its order dated 31/12/2004 in Appeal No.1881/1999 that if the Munsiff Court records a finding holding that there was justification for disconnection this Forum is not competent to award any compensation recording a different finding that opposite parties without any justification unauthorisedly disconnected the connection of consumer No.3818. It is to be highlighted that the same complainant had filed a suit as O.S 2058/1987 against KSEB authorities for injunction simplicities as well as mandatory injunction. The injunction simplicities was aimed at prohibiting the disconnection of electricity supply by the opposite parties and the mandatory injunction was aimed at a direction by court to ensure un-interrupted supply of electricity to the petitioner, pending adjudication of the disputes in connection with an alleged excess bill for Rs.1,09,201/-. After filing the said suit complainant moved an amendment application (IA 1554/2001) to incorporate a prayer for the grant of declaration that the excess bill is illegal and void and the same was allowed by the Munsiff Court. Since the incorporation of relief of declaration in the plaint was taken out the Suit (O.S 2058/97) from jurisdictional ambit of the Munsiff Court, the court returned the complaint under order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before proper Court. Accordingly O.S No.305/2001 was filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram for declaration and injunction. As per order dated 27/7/2005 in O.S 305/2001 of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, there was justification for disconnection. The finding recorded by the Sub Court is that “Plaintiff society had failed to pay Rs.1,09,201/- as per the invoice dated 14/10/1997 and due to the non-payment of the aforesaid bill the defendants disconnected the service connection on 17/7/1997 after giving due notice to the plaintiff. The said action of the defendants cannot be considered as illegal or unlawful or arbitrary. Since the plaintiff society is legally bound to pay the charge for supply of electrical energy and also for the misuse of the energy done by it. In this case the plaintiff society has failed to fulfill its legal obligation and hence it cannot be heard to say that there was malafide intention on the part of defendants. If that be so, no declaration as prayed for with respect to the invoice can be allowed. So also the question of re-connecting supply of electrical energy to the consumer No.3818 does not arise”.
In the version it is stated that for the very same cause of action complainant has filed O.S 2058/97 before the Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is pertinent to note that the said O.S 2058/97 has been renumbered as O.S 305/2001 when filed before the Sub Court. The cause of action in O.S.2058/97 and renumbered O.S 305/2001 as well as this complaint is one and the same and judgment in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 originally filed before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram has already been delivered. As per the finding recorded by the Sub Court in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 there is justification for disconnection of supply of energy. In view of the finding recorded by the Sub Court in O.S 305/2001 in connection with O.S 2058/97 originally filed before the Munsiff Court, as well as the finding recorded by the Hon'ble State Commission in Appeal 1881/99 that if the Munsiff Court records a finding holding that there was justification for disconnection, this Forum is not competent to award any compensation recording a different finding, we find the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above finding, the point No.(ii) requires no consideration. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of May, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.142/98 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : C. Christudas II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Certificate No.78/98 dated 30/10/98 issued by Sr. Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Hospital, Aryanad. P2 : Copy of list of plants damaged P3 : Photographs and negatives of damaged plants.
Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : G. Saseendran
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Letter dated 16/5/96 from Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS. KSEB. D2 : Invoice amount from 11/88 to 5/96. D3 : Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS, Tvpm Order No.Vig-AV3565/96 dt. 27/9/1996. D4 : Copy of details of revised invoice. D5 : Final revised bill dated 14/10/1997 D6 : Letter No.plg.com.3042/96 dated 19/8/97 from the Chief Engineer (Thermal & Commercial) O/o Board Secretariat, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Tvpm.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
