BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 292/2001 Filed on 18.07.2001 Dated : 30.03.2009 Complainant: Mary Magdalene, residing at 'Frasil', T.C 2/1947(7), Gowreesapattom, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(By adv. S. Reghukumar) Opposite parties:
Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. K.P. Renadive)]
This O.P having been heard on 28.02.2009, the Forum on 30.03.2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide Consumer No. 7244 under the 2nd opposite party, that the premises was rented out on 10.10.1998 to one Joseph Parakka on condition that electricity and water charges were to be remitted by the tenant himself, that complainant came to know that electricity charges were not paid by the tenant when she received a bill for Rs. 27,605/- on 31.03.2001, that complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party and enquired about the arrears and she was informed that bimonthly bills were issued to the tenant, that complainant was threatened that the service would be disconnected if she failed to remit the arrears immediately and on the threat of disconnection complainant had no other alternative but to pay the said amount in 4 instalments. Of this the first instalment was for Rs. 10,063/- and the same was remitted by the complainant out of which surcharge was to the tune of Rs. 4,650/-, that the lapse on the part of the 2nd opposite party in not taking steps to realise the arrears, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to refund Rs. 4,650/- with interest and waive Rs. 5580/- being surcharge ordered to be remitted in 3 instalments vide order dated 31.03.2001.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that meter readings were taken on bimonthly basis and invoices were issued then and there, that consumer defaulted payment towards energy charge from 11/98 onwards, that this discrepancy escaped the attention of the opposite parties and remained so upto 31.03.2001, that on 31.03.2001 while reviewing arrears towards current charges it was found that the consumer is one among the defaulters and the complainant had defaulted payment from 10.11.1998 onwards, that immediately a notice was issued to the consumer showing the details of arrears outstanding against her, that on her request 4 instalments were granted and first instalment was for Rs. 10,063/- which was remitted on 06.04.2001, that later the instalments were revised on the request of the complainant and instalment amounts were remitted by the consumer. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice involved in the matter. There is no collusion of opposite party with the tenant as alleged in the complaint. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 4650/- with interest thereon? Whether the complainant is entitled to get surcharge of Rs. 5580/- waived? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other reliefs and costs.
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. Opposite parties did not file affidavit in time and on 11.02.2004 defence evidence was closed. After closing the defence evidence on 27.09.2004, opposite parties filed affidavit without any petition to reopen evidence. Opposite parties did not produce any documents. Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly, the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide Consumer No. 7244 under the Electrical Major Section, Kesavadasapuram. It has been the case of the complainant that complainant is the owner of the premises having the above said consumer number connection, that the said premises was rented out on 10.10.1998 to one Dr. Joseph Parakka on condition that the electricity and water charges were to be remitted by the tenant himself, vide Ext. P1 lease agreement dated 10.10.1998, that in violation of the said provision of Ext. P1 agreement of lease, the lessee did not pay the electricity charges as per bill issued by the opposite parties from 10.11.1998 to 16.01.2001, that on 31.03.2001 after two days from vacating the house by the tenant, complainant came to know that the electricity charges were not paid by the tenant, when she received a bill for Rs. 27,605/- by Ext. P3 and that on verification, it was found that bimonthly demand cum disconnection notice for realising the electrical energy charges had been served on the tenant systematically. It has also been the case of the complainant that every demand and disconnection notice so issued carried an ultimatum that if the amount covered under the notice is not paid within 7 days of the receipt of the notice, it will lead to disconnection. Ext. P2 series are the copies of bimonthly bills from 10.11.1998 to 03/01. Further submission by the complainant is that the meter was faulty during the period and that resulted in the exorbitant readings recorded on the meter. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant was to the effect that the 2nd opposite party in collusion with the tenant did not take any coercive steps for realization of the amounts covered under Ext. P2 bills and that had the 2nd opposite party taken coercive steps for the realization of the amounts as per Ext. P2 bills such a situation putting the complainant into financial burden and consequential mental tension could have been avoided. It is urged by the opposite parties that though meter readings were taken properly, and invoices were issued, the consumer defaulted payment towards energy charge from 11/98 onwards and that this discrepancy escaped the attention of the opposite parties and remained upto 31.03.2001 and that on knowing the defaulted payment towards energy charges, a notice was issued to the consumer showing the details of the arrears outstanding against her and on her request, 4 instalments were granted and the first instalment for Rs. 1063/- was remitted on 06.04.2001, later the remaining instalments were revised on her request and on the basis of which the entire amount was recovered from the complainant. Further, it is submitted by the opposite parties that surcharge as per rules were collected for the belated payments. Further it is contended by the opposite parties that as per clause 15(c) of the Regulation relating to the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, “when there is transfer of ownership or right of occupancy of the premises, the registered consumer shall intimate the transfer of right of occupancy of the premises within 7 days to the AE/AEE concerned and that nobody had initiated action as envisaged under the said clause, and as such opposite party has no information whether the registered consumer or anybody else has consumed energy as consumer No. 7244. No material on record to show that complainant had informed the opposite party about the transfer of right of occupancy of the premises. It is pertinent to note that there being no case that energy was not used for the relevant period the complainant cannot maintain that the consumer is not liable to pay the invoice amount. According to the complainant the conduct of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service. It is urged by the complainant that each bill included in Ext. P2 series gave time for payment, even after the expiry of each payment period the opposite parties did not take any action for recovering the dues from the tenant/consumer for nearly 2½ years and all on a sudden on 31.03.2001, opposite parties noticed the non-payment and issued an arrear bill for Rs. 27605/- to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that as per clause 32(c) of the Regulation relating to the Conditions of Supply of electrical Energy, if the consumer fails to pay any invoice/card issued to him on or before the due date the board shall be at liberty to take action under Sub Section (1) of Sec. 24 of the Indian Electricity Act and to cut off the supply after giving such consumer not less than seven clear days notice in writing without prejudice to the Board's right to recover the amount of the bill by suit or otherwise. In the instant case opposite parties had issued bills systematically to the consumer, but on failure of payment no action was seen taken by opposite parties as envisaged under the said clause 32(c). This would definitely amount to deficiency in service on the part of parties. Invoking the clause 15(c) of the Regulation, it is submitted by the opposite party that they supply energy on the basis of a service connection agreement. Since nobody has initiated action as stipulated under clause 15(c) of the Regulation, opposite party has no information about the transfer of right of occupancy of the premises. The burden of proving the compliance as stipulated under clause 15(c) would rest on the complainant. Complainant did not furnish any material regarding the intimation of transfer of right of occupancy of the premises to opposite party, nor did complainant put the tenant in party array in the complaint. Even accepting the whole defence regarding clause 15(c) as above, that opposite parties cannot escape from their liability as per clause 32(c) of the Regulation. Had opposite parties initiated steps as per 32(c) of the Regulation such a situation putting the complainant into financial burden and consequent mental tension could have been avoided. Opposite parties' inaction in this regard forced the complainant to remit Rs. 10,230/- as surcharge alone, in addition to current charge. In the light of evidence on the records, we find both the complainant and opposite parties are mutually liable for not being complied as per clause 15(c) and 32(c) of the Regulation and as such we find justice will be well met if the liability of surcharge is to be distributed equi-proportionally between them. Since the complainant has paid the entire surcharge of Rs. 10,230/-, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 5115/- towards half of surcharge along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the complaint(from 18.07.2001).
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite parties shall refund a sum of Rs. 5,115/- with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from 18.07.2001 till the date of realisation to the complainant. Opposite parties shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the complainant. 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 day of 30th March 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A: MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 292/2001 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : NIL II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of lease agreement executed on 10.10.1998. P2 (a) - Copy of bill dated 16.01.2001. P2 (b) - Copy of bill dated 10.11.1998. P2 (c) - Copy of bill dated 14.11.2000. P2 (d) - Copy of bill dated 20.03.1999. P2 (e) - Copy of bill dated 14.05.1999. P2 (f) - Copy of bill dated 14.07.1999. P2 (g) - Copy of bill dated 15.09.1999. P2 (h) - Copy of bill dated 15.11.1999. P2 (i) - Copy of bill dated 15.01.2000. P2 (j) - Copy of bill dated 14.03.2000. P2 (k) - Copy of bill dated 18.05.2000. P2 (l) - Copy of bill dated 23.07.2000. P2 (m)- Copy of bill dated 26.09.2000. P3 - Photocopy of order dated 31.03.2001 of the 2nd opposite party. P4 - Photocopy of the receipt dated 06.04.2001 for Rs. 10,063/- III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
