BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of December, 2008
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.134/2008 Between Complainant : Saji S/o George, Thekkekkara House, Kaliyar P.O, Thodupuzha. Idukki District. (By Adv: Fenil Jose) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Major Division, Thodupuzha P.O. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Section, Kaliyar P.O, Vannappuram. O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The petition is filed against the KSEB for cancelling hike bill cum demand notice.
The complaint is conducting a flour mill at Mullenkutty near Kaliyar. He availed an electric connection under LT IV category from the opposite parties as Consumer No.4499 of Electrical Section, Vanappuram. The complainant was regularly paying the bills issued from the opposite party and the bills were in a range between 200 – 300. On 20.11.2007, the 3rd opposite party issued a notice to the complainant to fix a new meter for the light circuit with separate wiring within 15 days. The complainant executed the said work within the stipulated time and the matter was informed to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Even after the completion of the work, the 3rd opposite party issued a demand notice No. 83712 (Demand Notice cum disconnection notice under Section 24(1) of the Indian Electricity Act) for an amount of Rs.3,414/- for the period from 7/05 to 10/07. Though the complainant enquired the details of the bill to the 3rd opposite party, he avoided the complainant and no satisfactory answer was given. The complainant has paid all the electric bills issued by the opposite party and has not committed any theft or misuse of electrical energy. So the demand notice issued by the opposite party is illegal and liable to be cancelled. The petition is filed for canceling the same. 2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party under LT IV category with consumer No.4499. As per the tariff notification issued vide Kerala Gazette extraordinary dated 1.11.2002, the lighting load of an industrial consumer shall be segregated and metered by a separate meter. Since the petitioner has not complied with the above, notice was served to the petitioner to provide a separate wiring for the light. As per Clause 9(4) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, the lighting circuits of the industrial consumers should be separately wired and connected to separate meters. Since the consumer did not segregate the light and power load of Consumer No.4499, a demand notice amounting to Rs.3,414/- was prepared. The charges for theft or misuse were never demanded against the consumer. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain the wiring as per the rules, failing which the KSEB is bound to assess the consumer as per the prevailing rules. The complainant is liable to pay the amount and it is the duty of the consumer to arrange the wiring as per the rules and to inform the KSEB. The petitioner has been enjoying the rate applicable to consumers who have done segregation of the light and power load and the KSEB demanded the actual applicable rate only for 28 months and the consumer is liable to pay the amount.
3. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 (series)marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- Complainant started a flour mill and availed an electrical connection for the same as No.4499 of Electrical Section, Vannappuram as LT IV tariff. But a hike bill was issued on 25.07.2008. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the electrical connection was availed before 10 years. The bills were paid promptly. But on 20.11.2007, the 3rd opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant to fix a new meter for the light circuit with separate wiring within 15 days, the copy of the same is marked as Ext.P1. The complainant executed the above said work within the stipulated time. The matter was informed to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Evenafter a demand notice issued for Rs.3,414/- which is Ext.P2 for the period from 7/2005 to 10/2007. The complainant was regularly paying the electrical bills without any dues. The regular bill was nearly Rs.200/-. The opposite party filed a written version and cross examined the complainant. As per the written version, the Kerala Government issued a tariff notification No.1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002 dated 1.11.2002. The lighting load and power load of an industrial consumer are to be segregated, and in case of failure to do so, the entire electrical energy charges(fixed charge and energy charge) will be increased by 50%. When cross examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party, it was specifically asked where the Ext.P1 notice was complied by the complainant, PW1 deposed that it was complied with stipulated period, that is 15 days and the matter was intimated to the opposite party. The opposite party issued the Ext.P1 notice only on 20.11.2007 and it was duly complied by the complainant. No evidence produced by the opposite party to show that the complainant never complied as per the notice issued by the opposite party. So we think that the Ext.P2 bill issued by the opposite party is not proper and liable to be cancelled. Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.P2 demand notice cum bill dated 25.07.2008. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2008 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Saji George On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Notice dated 20.11.2007 issued by the 3rd opposite party Ext.P2 - Demand notice dated 25.07.2008 for Rs.3,414/- Ext.P3 (series) - Current Bills and Receipts( 3 Nos) before filing the petition Ext.P4(series) - Current Bills and Receipts (2 Nos)after filing the petition On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil
| 
