DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011
Present: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of filing: 22/10/2010
CC-128/2010
K.R. Kochu Krishnan,
S/O. Ramaswamy,
Prop. K.R.K. Rice Mill, -Complainant
Kannadi, Palakkad, residing at Kadungath House,
Thenkurussi,Palakkad
(Adv.P. Prasad)
Vs
1.The Secretary,
KSEB, Vidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram
2.The Asst. Executive Engineer, -Opposite parties
KSEB, Kuzhalmannam Section,
Palakkad
3.The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Kuzhalmannam Electric Section,
Kuzhalmannam
(Adv.M.S. Skaria)
O R D E R
BY SMT. PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant is the proprietor of the K.R.K Rice Mill and has availed electric connection in the year 1960 Vide Consumer No.355. The complainant was remitting the electric charges promptly and regularly. The complainant is even depositing a lumpsum amount in advance to the electric charges. The opposite parties has collected security deposit. The complainant's lively hood is with the income obtained from the rice mill. When the function of one electric motor is wind up the complainant informed the opposite party in the year 2008 to reduce the connected load and the 3rd oposite party after inspection reduced the connected load by dismantling the 8KW motor to 3KW. The opposite party was taking meter reading on all months. On 06/05/2010 issued a bill for Rs.347/- and the bill is adjusted from the advance amount of Rs.4681/-. On 05/06/2010 another bill for Rs.453/- was issued and the bill amount is adjusted from the advance amount. When the complainant find it difficult to earn the industry due to oldage, he informed the opposite party that the electric tariff is to be converted to commercial purpose. On 10/08/2010 he applied for the form and application was given to the opposite parties. Then the opposite party issued a bill dated 27/09/2010 stating as short assessment bill as per Accountant General's inspection to remit Rs.10,790/- towards the supply of electricity energy during July 2007 to August 2010. The opposite parties on all calender months inspected the Rice Mill and after taking the meter reading, issued the electric bill and the complainant remitted the electric charges. The complainant is not using the electricity for commercial purpose, in Consumer No: 355 till the application is filed to change the tariff. The opposite parties again issued a bill for Rs. 11,133/- dated 04/10/2010 inclusive of the amount stated in the bill dated 27/09/2010 to remit the amount on or before 27/10/2010. Otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected. The bill dated 04/10/2010 was given to the complainant only on 15/10/2010. There is clear unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to,
1. Cancel the bill dated 27/09/2010 for Rs.10,790/- and the bill dated 04/10/2010 for Rs. 11,133/-.
2. Pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards the mental pain and agony.
3. Pay the cost of the proceedings.
3rd opposite party filed version for and on behalf of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. 3rd opposite party stated that in the inspection of Accountant General's Office dated 19/08/2010 to 21/08/2010 found the discrepancies in the billing of Consumer No: 355. The complainant availed the service connection on 15/07/1961 in Lt IV tariff and billing in the same tariff.
The connected load of 8KW was reduced to 3KW as per the request of consumer and bill issued for the revised load. As an industrial tariff connection, the consumer has to operate the industrial motors and light load connected with the power meter and light meter respectively. Being an industrial consumer energy meter readings were taken on all months and the bills were issued regularly and accounted the amount from the advance payment. Considering the reading pattern from 7/2007 there is no reading on power meter and the light meter has recorded the reading. The one and only reason for the NIL reading on the power meter was due to the non operation of power motors. But the consumer was using the premises as godown for commercial activities and the matter brought to the notice of the consumer by the Board staff. As per Accountant General's report a short assessment bill for Rs.10,790/- issued on 27/09/2010 for the period 7/2007 to 8/2007 since the period was treated under commercial tariff. On 28/09/2010, the complainant has submitted a request for changing the industrial tariff to the commercial tariff. On 04/10/2010 a bill amounting to Rs. 11,133/- as the short assessment amount and the monthly amount for the previous month was served upon the complainant. On 09/11/2010, the complainant has requested to keep the bill in abeyance for one month for the payment of the entire bill amount. Hence it is clear that there is absolutely no mistake committed by the opposite parties. Therefore opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext. A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. Ext. B1 and B2 marked on the side of the opposite parties. 3rd opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are,
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the 3rd opposite party and documents from the side of complainant and opposite parties. In the present case it is found that the electricity connection was given on 1960. The complainant informed the opposite party in the year 2008 to reduce the connected load and the 3rd opposite party after inspection reduced the connected load by dismantling the 8KW Motor to 3KW. In Ext. A4, the complainant applied for the form on 10/08/2010. In Ext. A5 and A6 the opposite parties received the required fees. The complainant stated that the oposite parties issued the bill dated 27/09/2010 to remit Rs.10,790/-. The opposite parties on all Calendar months inspected the Rice Mill and issuing the electric bill. Ext. A2 and A3 are electricity bills dated 06/05/2010 and 05/06/2010. Also in Ext. A2 and A3 the tariff is LT-IV. In Ext. A1 the 3rd opposite party mentioned that sanction is hereby accorded for reducing the connected load by dismantling the 8KW Motor of consumer number 355 LT IV tariff with effect from 01/06/2008 onwards. No notice was issued by the 3rd opposite party to change the tariff as LT VII.A. In Ext. A7 and A8 the meter reading was calculated in VII A tariff. It is found that they have neglected to verify the tariff till 2010 and it was only the Accountant General's inspection who found out the discrepancy. The complainant stated that he has not using the electricity for commercial purpose. At the time of cross examination, the 3rd opposite party deposed that being an industrial tariff the meter reading was taking on all months. The opposite parties not produced the meter reading register. The 3rd opposite party deposed that the additional bill issued after the inspection of 3 years reading register. The opposite parties stated that the consumer was using the premises as a godown for commercial activities and that was brought to the notice of the consumer by the board staff. As per Accountant General's report a short assessment bill for Rs. 10,790/- has been issued on 27/09/2010. We find that it was the bounden duty of the opposite parties to issue bills in the correct tariff. They cannot escape from the liability by saying that it was a mistake. On 28/09/2010 the complainant has submitted a request for changing the industrial tariff to the commercial tariff. In the complaint, the complainant is going to convert the Rice Mill and the electric tariff is to be converted to commercial purpose. In the affidavit and argument notes complainant stated that he is going to close the Rice Mill and the electric tariff is to be converted to commercial purpose. In short the complainant decided to convert the electric tariff to commercial purpose. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that electricity was not used for commercial purpose. The complainant stated that no sum due from any consumer under this section shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years as per Section 56(2) of Electricity act. But 3rd opposite party deposed that short assessment bill is not bar under Section 56(2) of Electricity Act. The opposite parties were well aware that complainant's mill was industrial purpose and the tariff applicable was LT-IV. But the opposite parties have not inspected the mill and verified the tariff. In Ext.B1 the Accountant General's report the short assessment bill in the period of July 2007 to July 2010. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. So we cannot cancell the short assessment bill. But the opposite parties failed to issue the bills in the correct tariff.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in sevice on the part of opposite parties. In the result the complaint partly allowed.
We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation towards the mental agony and pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceeding to the complainant. The said amounts can be adjusted in the bill issued by the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of August, 2011.
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Copy of letter from KSEB, Kozhalmannam which informs the reduce of connected load.
Ext.A2- Electricity bill dated 06/05/2010.
Ext.A3- Electricity bill dated 05/06/2010.
Ext.A4- Receipt from KSEB with regards to the application in which the complainant wants to
close the mill dated 10/08/2010.
Ext.A5- Receipt from KSEB dated 28/09/2010.
Ext.A6- Receipt from KSEB dated 28/09/2010.
Ext.A7- Assessment Bill as per Accountant General's inspection dated 19/08/2010.
Ext.A8- Electricity Bill dated 04/10/2010.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1- Photocopy of Accountant General's report dated 19/08/2010.
Ext.B2- Original letter send by the complainant to 3rd opposite party dated 09/11/2010.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties
DW1- A. Shajahan, The Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Kozhalmannam Electric Section.
Cost allowed
Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Only) allowed as cost of proceedings.
