BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 132/2006 Filed on 26/04/2006

Dated: 15..11..2010

Complainant:

P. Sumathy, V.S. Bhavan, Thirupuram – P.O., Neyyattinkara Taluk.

(By Adv. J.R Sanudas)

Opposite parties:

1. The Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst. Engineer, KSEB., Sub Station, Poovar – P.O., Neyyattinkara Taluk.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 16..08..2010, the Forum on 15..11..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No: TPM/4385, that originally the above said connection was under 1A tariff and from 2000 onwards tariff was changed from 1A to VII B, that during from September 2004 to December 2004 a Doctor occupied the shop room for consulting practice, that opposite parties issued a bill dated 5/10/2004 for an amount of Rs. 5,400/- towards penal charges for additional load without any further details of period etc., that complainant filed a petition to Executive Engineer of the opposite parties on 20/10/2004, that complainant was again served with a bill dated 22/2/2005 for Rs.6,250/- towards penal charges from 21/10/2004 to 22/2/2005 for unauthorised extension to two shops and hospital, that complainant filed complaint to the I.G., who in turn directed to remit 1/10 of the bill and assured that the balance is to be remitted only after necessary investigation on the matter, that accordingly complainant remitted Rs. 1,195/- on 19/3/2005, that opposite parties had not conducted any investigation but issued another bill dated 22/4/2005 for Rs. 1,600/- for the period from 23/2/2005 to 15/4/2005, that complainant sent complaints to the Deputy Chief Engineer at Kattakkada on 7/3/2005, but no action was taken, that the connection to the said building was disconnected on 15/4/2005 without any sort of prior notice and subsequently a bill for the period till disconnection was issued, that complainant caused to send lawyer's notice to opposite parties on 22/7/2005 for cancellation of the illegal bills and for resumption of the electric supply. There was neither reply nor any action whatsoever from the opposite parties. Thereafter complainant filed a Civil Suit before the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara as OS 653/2005, the said suit was withdrawn subsequently as it was barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts on such matters. Hence this complaint to cancel the additional bills issued by opposite parties, to realise the amount of Rs. 1,145/- which was remitted by the complainant on 19/3/2005 from the opposite parties and to direct opposite parties to resume the electric connection and to pay compensation and cost.

2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending inter alia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complaint is barred by Section 145 of the Electrcity Act, that complaint is subjudice before the Civil Court, that complaint is regarding change of tariff which is not entertainable, that this is a case of unauthorised extension, that the service connection was provided to a small shed with a connected load of 100 watts on 16/7/1998 under domestic tariff LT 1A, that during the month of 5/2000 it was detected that there was no domestic occupation in the premises and the shed was using as the office of a Brickyard where the plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of bricks. Hence the tariff was changed to LT VII B from 5/2000, that on 1/10/2004 the Assistant Engineer, Poovar inspected the premises and detected that complainant had unauthorisedly extended the supply from Consumer No: TPM/4385 to a newly constructed building situated at about 25 meters from the premises using plastic wires, that the building consists of 7 rooms and in which 2 shops and one hospital were functioning, that there is no provision to extend supply from one premise to other to a prolonged period. It is permitted only on temporary basis under LT VIII tariff, that the complaint had extended the supply to the newly constructed building unauthorisedly from 2001 which was detected only on 1/10/2004, that the bill was issued as per Rules, that the Executive Engineer investigated the matter based on a complaint from the complainant and did not find any abnormality in issuing the bill for the unauthorised extended use of supply, that the bills were issued as per standing provisions of the Board and as per existing tariff Rules. There was no loss or hardship to the complainant. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether complainant is entitled to get invoices dated 5/10/2004, 2/3/2005 and 22/4/2005 cancelled?

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled to get connection restored?

    

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

    

4. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P25. In rebuttal, 2^nd opposite party has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 & D2. Two additional witnesses have been examined as DW2 & DW3 on the part of the opposite parties.

4. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties vide consumer No. TPM/4385. It has been the case of the complainant that initially the above said connection was taken under 1A tariff and from 2001 onwards tariff has been changed from 1A to VII B. It has also been the case of the complainant that he was remitting current charges without any default, that during 2004, a Doctor occupied shop room in the premises for his consulting practice, thereafter opposite parties issued a bill dated 5/10/2004 for an amount of Rs. 5,400/- towards penal charges for additional load without any further details of period etc., that complainant had filed a petition to Executive Engineer of the opposite parties at Neyyattinkara on 20/10/2004, but no action was taken by opposite parties, thereafter complainant was served with a bill dated 22/2/2005 for Rs. 6,250/- towards penal charges from 21/10/2004 to 22/2/2005 for unauthorised extension to two shops and hospital. It has also been the case of the complainant that in response to the said bills he filed complaint to IG., who in turn directed to remit 1/10 of the bill and assured that balance is to be remitted only after necessary investigation on the matter. Accordingly complainant remitted Rs.1,195/- on 19/3/2005. Without conducting any investigation opposite parties issued another bill dated 22/4/2005 for Rs. 1,600/- for the period from 23/2/2005 to 15/4/2005, that the connection to the said building was disconnected on 15/4/2005 without any sort of prior notice. Complainant sent lawyer's notice on 22/7/2005 for cancellation of the above said bills. No action was taken by the opposite parties. Exts. P1 to P3 are the disputed bills dated 5/10/2004, 22/2/2005 & 22/4/2005. Ext. P1 bill raised under LT VII B and other 2 bills under LT VIII. The amount mentioned in the above said bills as penal charges for additional load. Exts. P4 to P8 are bills issued by opposite paties dated 9/2/2001, 26/4/2001, 8/2/2002, 7/6/2003 & 2/8/2005. On perusal of Ext. P4 bill it is seen that the bill is prepared under LT 1A. Exts. P5 to P8 are under LT VII B. On perusal of Exts. P4 to P8 it is seen that bi-monthly consumption of the electricity has not exceeded 76 units. Ext. P9 is the receipt dated 19/3/2005 evidencing the payment of Rs. 1,195/- . Exts. P10 to P12 are copies of the complaints to Executive Engineer, Deputy Chief Engineer and to Legislative Secretary, Petition Committee. Ext. P13 is the copy of the Suit notice. Ext. P14 is the postal receipt and Ext. P15 series are acknowledgment cards. Ext. P16 is the copy of the letter from the complainant to Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext. P17 is the copy of the letter dated 19/1/2006 addressed to Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Poovar. Ext. P18 is the letter issued by Assistant Engineer to complainant in connection with application dated 19/1/2006. Ext. P19 is the copy of the letter addressed to complainant by the Assistant Engineer. On perusal of Ext. P18 letter issued by Assistant Engineer it is seen that complainant was informed by opposite parties that the defect in the bill dated 5/10/2004 has been cured while bills dated 22/2/2005 and 15/4/2005 are correct and complainant was directed by Ext. P18 to remit balance amount within 7 days from the date of notice. As per Ext. P9 opposite parties has informed the complainant to remit penal amount in order to get new connection. Exts. P20 & P21 are copies of the application addressed to Assistant Engineer by the complainant. Exts. P22 & P23 are original invoices dated 5/9/1999 and 12/9/2005. Exts. P22 and P23 are in connection with consumer No. TPM 3987. Ext. P25 is the copy of the Order of the 1^st Additional Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara dated 15/07/2006. As per Ext. P25 Order, plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the Suit with liberty to approach appropriate Forum. It has been contended by opposite parties that this is a case of unauthorised extension, that the service connection with consumer No. TPM 4385 was provided to a small shed with a connected load of 100 w on 16/7/1998 under domestic tariff. It has also been contended by opposite parties that the said connection was under domestic tariff upto 4/2000. During the month of 5/2000 the tariff was changed to LT VII B as there was no domestic occupation in the premises and the shed was used as the office of the Brickyard where the plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of bricks. It has been the stance of the opposite parties that on 1/10/2004 opposite parties detected that the complainant had unauthorisedly extended the supply from the connection to a newly constructed building situated at about 25 meters from the premises, that a Site mahazar was prepared, that the building consists of 7 rooms and in which 2 shops namely 'Revathy Traders and Athira Stores' and one Hospital – 'Aswathy Hospital' were functioning. Hence tariff was changed during 5/2000. It is submitted by opposite parties that the new building was constructed in the year 2002, thereafter complainant was re-assessed and a bill for Rs.5,400/- was issued towards penal charges for unauthorised extension of supply. Executive Engineer has examined the complaint filed by the complainant and found that the bill was issued as per Rules, since complainant has not dismantled the unauthorised extension as directed in letter dated 4/10/2004 and continued the extended use of supply opposite parties issued a bill for Rs.6,250/- for the period from 21/10/2004 to 22/2/2005 under LT VIII tariff. Complainant had not paid the amount, thereafter another bill was issued for Rs. 1,600/- for the period from 23/2/2005 to 18/3/2005. As per the direction of IG of KSEB supply was re-connected on 19/3/2003 after collecting 10% of the due amount (Rs. 1,195). Though IG investigated the matter, no abnormality was found in the bills for unauthorised extended use of supply, even then complainant refused to remove unauthorised extension. In her cross examination complainant admitted that a Site mahazar was prepared by opposite parties are 1/10/2004, that at that time complainant was absent. It is further seen deposed by the complainant that she has taken connection to the new building from the old shed through PVC pipe. Accordingly connection was put under LT VII B. She has admitted that the said connection was taken not with the prior permission of the Board. In his cross examination 2^nd opposite party admitted that there are 2 connections out of which consumer No. TPM 4385 is mentioned in the mahazar while other number is not mentioned therein. He has also deposed in his cross examination that consumer was not there at the time of preparation of Mahazar. Further, 2^nd opposite party has deposed that the instant case is connected with consumer No. TPM 4385, while the other consumer number is not mentioned in the Mahazar. In his cross examination, 2^nd opposite party has deposed that additional load comes to 1kw while at the time of taking connection it was upto 100 w. DW2 has deposed that he has prepared the mahazar Ext. D1 and Ext. D1 was prepared in the absence of the consumer and DW3 is a mahazar witness. On going through the documents before us it is seen that Ext. P1 is prepared under LT VII B and Ext. P2 & P3 are under LT VIII. Further, consumption of energy is not seen mentioned anywhere in Exts. P1 to P3. It is to be noted that Ext. P4 bill dated 9/2/2001 was prepared under 1A. As per Ext. P4 consumption was 17 units while as per Exts. P5 to P8, bills were prepared under LT VII B, but consumption in each bill remained below 76 units. It is to be noted that when connected load does not exceed 1000 units, the tariff applicable is LT VII B. Actual consumption not recorded in the disputed bills. It is seen assessed on the basis of 1kw. As per Ext. P8 bill, average consumption mentioned is 35 units. No material before us to show that additional load was 1kw. As per Ext. D1 mahazar total load of use was 835 watts. Admittedly, consumer was absent while preparing the mahazar. Mahazar copy was not issued to her. Inview of the evidence available on records we are of the opinion that as per Regulation 42 if the consumer exceeds contracted load without prior permission of the Board higher tariff is applicable coming under misuse of energy within the meaning of Indian Electricity Act. Misuse of energy will be billed at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse, unless there are convincing reasons for adopting different charges. In this case, as per Exts. P4 to P8 average bi-monthly consumption has not exceeded 100 units. It is further to be noted that spot bill was in force. Opposite party had issued bi-monthly bills also. Since complainant has admitted in her cross examination that connection has extended from old shed to new building through PVC pipe without prior permission of the opposite parties, complainant is liable to remit tariff applicable under misuse of energy within the meaning of the Indian Electricity Act. Taking the overall situation we are of the considered opinion that justice will be well met if misuse of energy billed at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse at the rate of 100 units per month.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The invoices (Exts. P1 to P3) dated 5/10/2004, 2/3/2005 and 15/4/2005 issued by opposite parties are cancelled. Opposite parties shall issue bill at 3 times the rate applicable under LT VII B for previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse ( 1/10/2004) at the rate of 100 units per month. The amount of Rs. 1,195/- already remitted on 19/3/2005 shall be adjusted in the bill. In facts and circumstances of the case there will be no compensation and cost. On remittance of the said bill complainant is entitled to get connection restored

.

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 15^th day of November, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No. 132/2006

APPENDIX

1. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Varghese. K

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Original receipt No. 53947 dated 5/10/2004

P2 : " " No. 25396 dated 22/2/2005

P3 : " " No. 25069 dated 15/4/2005

P4 : " Bill No. 639665 dated 9/2/2001

P5 : " " No. 853892 dated 26/4/2001

P6 : " Bill No. 158351 dated 8/2/2002

P7 : " Bill No. N 0034 dated 7/6/2003

P8 : " Bill No. 91062 dated 2/8/2005

P9 : " Bill No. 02558 dated 19/3/2005

P10 : Copy of letter dated 20/10/2009 issued by complainant

P11 : " " 7/3/2005 issued by complainant

P12 : " " 7/5/2005

P13 : " Advocate notice dated 22/7/2005

P14 : Postal receipts

P15 : Acknowledgement cards

P16 : Copy of letter dated 17/12/2005 issued by complainant

P17 : " letter dated 19/1/2006 issued by complainant

P18 : " letter dated 31/01/2006 issued by opposite party

P19 : " letter dated 31/01/2006 issued by opposite party

P20 : " letter dated 28/2/2006 issued by complainant

P21 : " letter dated 28/2/2006 issued by complainant

P22 : Original bill No. 134133 dated 5/9/999

P23 : Invoice No. 65067 dated 12/9/2005

P24 : Interim receipt No. 149

P25 : Copy of Order in the Court of the 1 Addl. Munsiff, Neyyattinkara.

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : R. Jayaraj

DW2 : V. Sankaran Nair

DW3 : Sadhasivan Nair

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of Site Mahasar dated 1/10/2004

D2 : " letter dated 29/10/2004 addressed to the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Poovar.

PRESIDENT