SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed against the K.S.E.B for deficiency in service in calculating the bill for an agricultural connection.<br /> <br /> The complainant is an agriculturist residing in the above address. For his agricultural purpose the complainant availed electric connection from the opposite party as Consumer No.935/VTL/5 in the year 1989. At the time of obtaining the connection, the complainant was well aware that no electrical energy fee was imposed for agricultural purpose. The opposite parties also convinced the matter to the complainant at that time. After that the Government have imposed 10 paise per unit as fee for the electrical energy for the same. Connection was received on the very next day of application because it was for agricultural purpose. The complainant used the same connection for one year and 365 unit of electrical energy was used. Not even a single bill was issued by the opposite party at that time. In 1992 the complainant informed the opposite parties that the complainant never intended to continue the connection and so the opposite party dismantled the electric connection of the complainant. A demand notice was issued on 11.2.2002 by the 3rd opposite party for Rs.5,187/- stating that the arrears of electrical energy from 7/89 to 2/02. The complainant enquired the same in the opposite party's office and the opposite party replied that they would peruse the old records and do what is needed. After the same on 25.03.2004, another demand notice was issued by the 3rd opposite party for Rs.1,776/-. Thus the opposite party realised Rs.6,963/- from the complainant by Revenue Recovery Proceedings. The complainant was compelled to pay the bill due to the RR proceedings of the opposite party. No electrical energy fee is required to be paid for the agricultural customers and so it is a deficiency in the service of the opposite party and thus the complaint is filed.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party appeared and filed a written version and it is admitted that the petitioner was registered as an agricultural consumer having the consumer No.939/VTL/5 on 7.03.1989. The petitioner had a wrong impression about the concession available to agricultural consumers on account of mis-information. The Board never supplies electricity to agricultural consumers free of charge. It is paid either by the consumer or by the Krishi Bhavan of the area concerned, if the consumer is eligible and included in the list of the Krishi Bhavan of the respective area. The petitioner in question satisfied neither of the conditions. So he was not eligible for the free supply of electricity. A list of consumers was prepared by the opposite party as per the direction of Krishi Bhavan, Vellathooval who were eligible for the free supply of electricity. But the petitioner's consumer number did not find place on that list. Under Provisional Invoice Card System, monthly bills were not issued. Instead of that a provisional invoice card was issued. The consumer was supposed to pay a fixed amount every month as given on the PIC. But the petitioner had not been remitted any amount as electricity charges until it was noticed during 2002 following the introduction of the spot billing system. That is why he was given a bill to the tune of Rs.5,187/- being fixed charges and energy charges for 365 units, already consumed by him, with surcharge from 7/89 to 2/02. The consumers electrical connection was disconnected as per the request of the complainant. But as per the records of the opposite party, it is seen that the complainant had used 46 units of electrical energy from 5/02 to 9/03. Moreover, the complainant had not lodged any complaint at the Electrical Section Office, Adimali about the hike bill. So RR proceedings were initiated and the complainant paid the entire bill. The allegation raised in the complaint are fully false and the petition may be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled<br /> to ?<br /> 4. The evidence consists of the chief affidavit filed by the complainant and the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R8 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :-The complainant who is an agriculturist, obtained electric connection for operating and lighting the consumer's motor pump set on 4.03.1989. At the time of availing the connection, the opposite party was supplying electric energy as free cost for agricultural purpose. After that, the Government introduced 10 paise per unit. The Complainant consumed 365 units of electric energy. No bill was issued by opposite party. The connection was disconnected in 1992. Afterwards on 11.02.2008 the 3rd opposite party issued a demand notice to the complainant telling to pay Rs.5,187/- as arrear electricity bill to the opposite party from 7/89 to 2/2002, which is Ext.P1. Another notice issued by opposite party on 25.03.2004 demanding to pay Rs.1,776/- as arrear electricity bill from 2/03 to 3/04, which is Ext.P2. As per opposite party the complainant's consumer No.939/I is not recorded in the list of the free electric energy supply list which was given by the Agricultural officer. So RR proceedings were proceeded, which is marked as Ext.P3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and chief affidavit filed. He deposed that at the time of obtaining the connection the opposite party convinced him that the electrical energy connection supplied to him was free of cost because it was agricultural connection. Ext.P6 is the certificate issued by the Agricultural officer stating that the complainant needs electrical connection urgently for agricultural purpose. Ext.P5 is the report issued by the Chief Engineer(Commercial Thariff), Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, on 23.04.2008 as per the application of the complainant under the right to Information Act 2005. In the Kerala Government Gazettee No.276 dated 30.04.1976, it is instructed that for agricultural purpose the electricity energy charge is 10 paise per unit and as per the Government Gazettee No.526 dated 29.07.1980, the tariff of electrical energy charge per unit is 13 paise for agricultural purpose. The said gazette is also produced. The opposite party was examined as DW1. She deposed that the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected first but it was reconnected and the meter reading was written in the register on 25.09.2001. Copy of the ledger is produced as Ext.R3. The complainant never complainted about the hike demand notice to the upper officers of the opposite party. He only applied for installment for payment and it was given. The letter for the same is Ext.R4. In cross examination, DW1 admitted that the connection was given for agricultural purpose. Also admitted that the recommendation of the Agricultural Officer, Vellathooval which was also produced by the complainant. The final meter reading in 2001 was 365 units. The disconnection was in the month of February 2002. No bill was issued to the complainant at that time because there was no spot billing system in that period. Anyway as per Ext.R3, the meter reading register produced by DW1 it is seen that the final reading of the complainant's consumer No.939 is 365 dated 25.09.2000. Ext.R8(d) which is the Revenue Account ledger of KSEB produced by DW1, it is written that the connection for the complainant was agricultural. Ext.R6 is the electric connection agreement produced by DW1 in which a schedule annexed by the opposite party. The first clause is that connection issued for operating and lighting motor pump set located at Muthuvankudy. Opposite party's contention is that in Ext.R7, which is the list of agricultural consumers produced by DW1, the complainants Consumer Number is not mentioned. But the list is prepared by the 2nd opposite party and not the Agricultural Officer. So perusing<br /> all the documents and the evidence, it is clear that the complainant's electric connection is for agricultural purpose and so the opposite party must comply the order of the Kerala Government. The order that the electric ESI charge for agricultural purpose is 10 paise per unit, after that it was modified as 12 paise per unit as per Ext.P5. Ext.P4, the copy of the information given by the 3rd opposite party as per the application under the right to Information Act 2005, the total energy charge for 365 units calculated is Rs.1,733/- for the complainant's consumer No.939/VTL as per the government tariff. No fine must be imposed. On 1/04/1998 onwards, if the consumer whose electric charge is paid through Agricultural Department, and if the consumer is not able to pay the bill in time due to technical problems, no fine must be imposed, which is mentioned as 6th clause in G.O(MS)No.395/95/AD dated 14.12.1995. Copy of the same is produced by the complainant with argument note. So we think that it is not proper to recover Rs.6,963/- from the complainant for his agricultural connection. The opposite party may return the amount Rs.6,963/- received from the complainant. The opposite party is entitled to get Rs.1,733/- from the complainant as per Ext.P4, if the complainant did not pay the same. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition.<br /> <br /> As a result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the excess amount Rs.6,963/- received from the complainant as excess electric energy charge. The opposite party is entitled to get Rs.1,733/- from the complainant as per Ext.P4, if the complainant did not pay the same. Also the opposite party is directed to give Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the <br /> outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of August, 2008<br /> <br /> <br />