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. 518/2000 Dated: 15..11..2008
Complainant: Secretary, Ariyottukonam Sri Thampuran Temple Devaswom Committee. (By Adv. Sri. N.R. Suresh Kumar) Opposite parties: 1. Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Secretary. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, KSEB., Nedumangad. Assistant Engineer, KSEB., Kanyakulangara Section.
(By Adv. Sri. Renadive)
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 22..01..2005 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 29..08..2008, the Forum on 15..11..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party with consumer No.RL.270. Initially the power charges being paid under the slab system. During 1993 opposite parties changed the tariff to LT.VII A which is applicable to commercial institutions without giving notice to this complaint. The complainant had been paid power charges under the tariff rates ever since 1993 without knowledge. Complainant became aware of the fact that the power charges are claimed by opposite parties at a higher tariff rate when an additional bill for Rs.4,262/- was issued to the complainant during 1998. On getting knowledge of the said fact complainant sent a letter dated 22..06..1999 to 3rd opposite party requesting to change the tariff from LT.VII A to LT. VI A. But no action was taken on the said request. Complainant again sent letter to 3rd opposite party on 29..03..2000. The said request also remained unattended. In the meanwhile complainant was issued with a demand and disconnection notice under Sec.24(1) Electricity Act dated 26..07..2000 claiming an amount of Rs. 5,842/-. Subsequently on 01..09..2000 also a similar bill was issued for an amount of Rs.3,553/-. But when the irregularity was pointed out the authorities made necessary corrections in the duplicate of the said bill and demanded to remit only Rs.1,783/- instead of Rs. 3,553/-. The corrected amount is arrived at by computing charges at the rate provided under LT.VI A which ought to have been followed by the opposite parties from the very inception. Opposite parties have colleced a huge amount from the complainant by their mistake and the same had been brought to the notice of the opposite parties several times. The act of the opposite parties tantamounts to gross deficiency in service, rather unfair trade practice. On 18..09..2000 when the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party he had been issued with a statement of account claiming a total arrears of power charges for a period of 23 months amounting Rs. 50,679/-. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to compute the power charges under tariff LT. VI A from 6/99 onwards and to adjust the excess amount already collected towards future bills and to direct the opposite parties not to disconnect the power supply on the basis of statement of accounts dated 18..09..2000 and to realize cost from the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is regarding the tariff and its rating which does not attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. He is admitted that the service connection is registered in favour of the Secretary, Ariyottukonam Sri Thampuran Temple. At the time of effecting service connection the registered connected load was 180 watts only and the same was included under non-domestic tariff. Consumer was making payments towards energy charges under provisional invoice card system and not under slab system. During 2/93 consumer enhanced the connected load to 6213 watts by connecting up the load of a nearby large dining hall and his kitchen to the above energy meter. The building is a separate premises and is being rented out to purpose like marriage parties etc. Since the connected load was increased considerably the service connection was converted to 3 phase as per the request of the consumer. Since concessional tariff is applicable to places of worship only the tariff was then changed to LT. VII A due to the inclusion of the dining hall and its kitchen to the connected load of the temple. Complainant was also aware of this and he had been remitting energy charges as per provisional invoice card for the last 8 years. The allegation that the complainant became aware of the tariff assigned to them only at a later date is false. The adjustment invoice issued for Rs.4,262/- was the charges for the excess consumption over and above the agreed 100 units/month for the period from 6/97 to 6/98. The amount was remitted in 3 installments. The request of the consumer to change the tariff could not be entertained since a particular tariff is assigned based on the purpose for which energy is being used and the purpose was not changed. During 8/2000 the temple authorities contacted the 3rd opposite party and inspected the premises and once again advised that the tariff can be changed if the Auditorium and Marriage Hall which is a separate premises used for a separate purpose is detached from the load connected to the energy meter in the temple by availing a separate service connection. Thereon the Temple Authorities restricted the service connection to the connected load of the temple only and the service connection was converted into LT.VI A (8/2000). But for the rest of the premises complainant have not applied for a separate service connection. The invoice dated 26..07..2000 for Rs. 5,842/- which had been corrected to Rs.6,012/- was a spot bill consequent on the introduction of bi-monthly spot billing system. Invoice for Rs.3,553/- issued on 01..09..2000 was the second bi-monthly spot bill. The errors in the bill was corrected, since the tariff was changed to LT. VI A. The complainant has remitted normal current charges only upto 3/2000. The cut off reading of consumer No.RL 270 in 5/2000 was 15414 units showing an average monthly consumption of 395 units for the period from 6/98 to 5/2000 against the allotted 135 units/month. The spot bill issued on 01..09..2000 included the adjustment amount for the above period also. The total demand raised by opposite party is as follows:
Pending spot bill for the period 6/2000 & 7/2000 Rs. 6012.00
Spot bill for 8/2000 & 9/2000 Rs. 1783.00
Adjustment bill for 6/98 to 5/2000 Rs.42884.00 ------------------ Total Rs.50679.00 ------------------
No excess amount has been collected from the complainant. The consumer is eligible for LT. VI A tariff only from 8/2000 onwards when the energy was used for the respective purpose. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
3. The points that would arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether the complainant is entitled to power charges under
Tariff LT. VI A from 6/99 onwards?
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is liable for the amount of Rs. 50,679/- as demanded by opposite parties? Other Reliefs and Costs?
4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts. P1 to P11. Opposite parties did not file proof affidavit and documents. 5. Points (i) to (iv): Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of the 1st opposite party and the consumer No.is RL 270. It has been the case of the complainant that initially energy charges were paid under slab system, which has been resisted by the opposite party by submitting that initially consumer was making payments under the provisional invoice card system. To substantiate the same neither the complainant nor the opposite parties furnished any document. Complainant submits that during 1993 the opposite parties changed the tariff to LT. VII A which is applicable to commercial institution without giving notice to the complainant and that complainant had been paying power charges under LT. VII A since 1993. It has been contended by opposite parties that at the time of effecting service connection the registered connected load was 180 watts and the same was included under non-domestic tariff and that during 2/93, the consumer enhanced the connected load to 6213 watts by connecting up the load of a nearby large dining hall and its kitchen to the said meter and that the building is a separate premises and is being rented out to purpose like marriage etc. Opposite parties submit that since the connected load was increased considerably, the service connection was converted to 3 phase as per request of the consumer and that since concessional tariff was applicable to places of worship only, the tariff was then changed to LT. VII A due to the inclusion of the dining hall and its kitchen to the connected load of the temple. Ext.P1 is the copy of the letter dated 02..09..1998 addressed to 3rd opposite party regarding additional bill. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 22..06..1999 addressed to 3rd opposite party regarding current charge and change of tariff issued by the complainant. Ext.P3 is the copy of another letter dated 21..07..1999 regarding the change of tariff. Ext.P4 is the copy of acknowledgment cards. Ext.P5 is copy of another letter dated 07..03..2000 regarding tariff change. Ext.P6 is the copy of the letter dated 02..08..2000 addressed to 2nd opposite party. Ext.P7 is the copy of demand and disconnection notice dated 26..07..2000. As per Ext.P7, the consumption is 870 units, tariff under LT. VII A fixed charge is Rs.100/-, and current charge is Rs.5,742/- total amount to be remitted is Rs.5,842/-. During the said period spot billing came into force. Ext.P8 is the copy of demand and disconnection notice where the consumption is 582 units and amount to be remitted is Rs. 3,553/-. Ext.P9 is the copy of statement of account issued by the opposite party claiming a total arrears of power charges for a period of 23 months amounting to Rs.50,679/-. As per Ext.P9, the statement of account is prepared under LT. VII A. It is pertinent to note that complainant had been remitting the current charges as per provisional invoice card issued under LT. VII A. Complainant did not produce the copy of any bills remitted prior to 26..07..2000. Submission by the complainant that complainant became aware of the fact that the charges are being claimed by the opposie parties at a higher tariff rate when additional bill for Rs.4,262/- was issued to complainant during 1998, cannot be believed. Even the additional bill issued for the period from 6/97 to 6/98 was remitted by the complainant. Complainant has no case that the meter is faulty and the meter reading is wrong. There is no dispute regarding the meter reading also. The dispute is with regard to change of tariff. Opposite parties submits that the tariff is assigned based on the purpose for which energy being used and the purpose was not changed. According to opposie parties on the request of the temple authorities 3rd opposite party inspected the premises during 8/00 and advised that the tariff could be changed if the Auditorium and Marriage Hall, which is separate premises used for a separate purpose, is detached from a separate purpose, is detached from the connected load to the energy meter in the temple by availing a separate service connection and that on advice the complainant restricted the service connection to the connected load of the temple only and the service connection was converted into LT. VI A tariff. Submission by the opposite parties is that for the rest of premises, like marriage hall etc. complainant have not yet applied for separate service connection prior to the conversion of tariff into LT. VI A spot billing system came into force. As per Ext.P7 spot bill dated 26..07..2000 complainant has consumed 870 units, for which fixed charge was Rs. 100/- and current charge under LT. VII A tariff was Rs. 5,742/-, total amounting to Rs. 5,842/-. After conversion of tariff from LT. VII A to VI A, as per the second spot bill dated 01..09..2000, consumption has reduced from 870 to 582 units and the amount to be remitted was Rs.3,553/- but which was later, corrected by opposite parties as Rs.1,783/-, which is seen stated in Ext.P9 statement of account prepared by opposite parties. According to opposite parties, tariff conversion into LT. VI A was effected during 8/00 which is not disputed by the complainant. Before the said conversion, complainant had enhanced the connected load by connecting up the load of a nearby dining hall and its kitchen to the said energy meter and service connection was converted to 3 phase and tariff was changed to LT. VII A which continued till 8/00. Hence we are of the considered opinion that complainant is not entitled to power charges under tariff LT. VI A from 6/99 onwards. Complainant is liable to remit power charges under tariff LT VII A till the date of conversion into LT. VI A (that is till 8/00). Next point requiring consideration is whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As per Ext.P9 statement of account issued by opposite parties, reading in 5/2000 was 15414 units, prior to that the reading was taken in 6/98 which was 6314 units. In between 6/98 and 5/00 meter reading was not taken by the opposite parties. No documents to prove otherwise. Delay in taking meter reading will definitely saddle the complainant, by way of heavy financial burden. Complainant would be relaxed if the meter reading was taken in time. Hence delay in meter reading would amount to deficiency in service. As per Ext.P9, opposite parties claims an amount of Rs.50,679/-, out of which opposite parties claims a sum of Rs.1,783/- for 582 unit under LT. VI A as per corrected spot bill dated 01..09..2000, and Rs. 6,012/- for 870 units under LT. VII A as per corrected spot bill dated 26..07..2000 and Rs.3,899/- as duty for current charge. As per Ext.P9 from 6/98 to 5/00 (for 23 months) 9100 units were consumed under LT. VII A. Hence during the said period the average monthly consumption would be 3965 units as against the allotted 135 units per month. There is no case that meter was not faulty and there is no dispute regarding meter reading also.
Hence 395 x 6 x 23 = 54510 Less 135 x 5 x 23 = - 15525 ---------- Balance current charge = 38985 ----------- Balance current charge for 23 months = 38985 As per corrected spot bill dated 7/00 under LT. VII A = 6012
As per spot bill dated 9/00 under LT. VI A = 1783 ------------ Total = 46780 -------------
Duty has to be avoided. For delay in meter reading opposite party is liable to pay a compenstion of Rs.5,000/-, which should be adjusted against the dues to be paid by the complainant. After adjusting the said compensation of Rs. 5,000/- from Rs.46,780/-, the balance amount would come to Rs.41,780/- which the complainant has to pay by 6 equally monthly installments. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall pay a sum of Rs.41,780/- to opposite parties. The payment shall be made by the complainant by 6 equally monthly installments commencing from the month of January 2009. Complainant shall pay bi-monthly spot bill from 09/00 onwards under LT. VI A. There will be no order as to costs.
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 15th day of November, 2008.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No. 518/2000
APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of letter No.18/98 dated 02..09..1998 P2 : " letter No. 15/99 dated 22..06..1999 P3 : " letter No.17/99 dated 21..07..1999 P4 : " acknowledgment card dated 22..07..1999 P5 : " application dated 29..03..2000 P6 : " application dated 02..08..2000 P7 : " bill No.R3-401763 dated 26..07..2000 P8 : " bill No.C 18-19091 dated 01..09..2000 P9 : " statement of account dated 18..09..2000 P10 : " receipt No.155 dated 24..07..2003 of Rs.3450/-. P11 : " bill No.V-0037 dated 03..09..2003. III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL IV. Opposite parties' documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
