Kerala State Electricity Board
Kerala State Electricity Board
The complainantís case is as follows. The complainant is a consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.15836. He is running the firm as part of the self-employment for livelihood. The respondents have issued a notice dated 16.5.08 to pay Rs.5940/- as additional security deposit and threatened to disconnect the supply if the amount is not paid. But no such amount is pending against the complainant and the respondents have issued the notice without any basis. So the complainant is not liable to pay the bill as per the disputed notice.
2. The respondents called absent and set exparte.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit and produced the disputed notice and is marked as Ext. P1.
4. The complainantís case is that he is paying the electricity charges regularly without making any dues. The Ext. P1 notice is issued without any basis. So the complainant is not liable to pay the amount stated in Ext. P1 notice. Ext. P1 notice is issued to collect the additional security deposit vide Clause 13(4) of the Electricity Supply Code and being a statutory requirement one month time was allowed to remit the amount. So the complainant is liable to pay the bill as per the Ext. P1 notice.
5. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to remit the Ext. P1 notice amount by two equal monthly instalments consecutively. The first instalment shall pay on or before 1.10.2009.
Kerala State Electricity Board
Kolmotta, P.O.Parassinikadavu. Complainant
(Rep. by Adv.C.Krishnan)
Electrical section, KSEB,
Kerala State Electricity Board, opposite parties
3. Junior Agricultural Officer,
Krishi Bhavan, Bakkalam, P.O.Kanool.
O R D E R
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to reinstate the service connection and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant is the consumer with consumer No.3423. The connection was given w.e.f 9.4.92 for the purpose of agriculture. The average consumption of the complainant, who has been in possession of 63 Ĺ cents of coconut garden, is 10 units. The charges were being paid by 3rd opposite party since it is an agriculture connection .On 20.1.2006 1st opposite party issued notice stating that the service connection No.3423 is under disconnection for more than six months and demanded to clear the dues within 7 days. But the 1st opposite party has been issuing bills for payment of current charges till June 2006.
On enquiry it is learnt that the connection has been changed into domestic connection. No notice was issued while changing the status from agriculture purpose to domestic purpose. Connection for agriculture purpose is essential for complainant. Now the service connection has been dismantled. The act of opposite parties in dismantling the service connection without notice is arbitrary and illegal and deficiency in service. Complainant has sustained great monetary loss. Hence this complaint for a direction to reinstate the connection and to pay compensation.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version together denying the main allegations. The case of these opposite parties in brief is as follows: Complainant is a consumer. The connection 3423 was given for agriculture purpose. Average consumption was 10 units per month. The bill amount up to 8/2002 was paid by the 3rd opposite party. During 8/2002 these opposite parties noticed using electricity by the consumer for domestic purposes from the alleged agricultural connection and the same was intimated to 3rd opposite party. Thus 3rd opposite party deleted the complainant from the list of agricultural consumers who are exempted from paying current charges. The complainant used to pump water to his overhead tank made on the top of his house for his domestic purposes. Hence there was heavy consumption during monsoon period also.
After 68/2002 no amount was remitted by agriculture officer for the consumption of electricity by the complainant. The service connection was disconnected on 19.6.2005 as per section 38(1) (9) of conditions supply of electricity Energy. But no payment has been made by the consumer after 8/2002. Notice was issued to complainant on 20.1.2006 for clearing the dues. The complainant rejected to accept the notice. Notice was posted on the wall of his premise. But he has not made any payment. A person to whom notice has been served shall file objection before the assessing officer. Complainant has not approached the assessing officer with objection till date.
As per terms and conditions no service shall remain disconnected for more than six months for non payment of amount due to the Board. As such the service connection was dismantled after giving notice on 21.6.2006. The total arrears on the account of the complainant is Rs.2944/-. As the complainant has misused energy for domestic purpose, the tariff in the bill was changed from agricultural tariff to domestic tariff. This opposite party had given sufficient time to the consumer to remit the current charges. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of these opposite parties. These opposite parties are not liable for any loss. Hence to dismiss the complaint.
3rd opposite party filed version separately. 3rd opposite party contended as follows: The complainant misused the service connection which was given for agricultural purpose under agricultural tariff. As per the intimation from Electrical section KSEB Dharmasala the complainantís name was excluded from the list of consumers whose current bill for the agricultural purpose had been paid by agricultural department. It was reported seven consumers out of 100 included in this list were misused the connection using electricity other than for the purpose of agriculture. Upon the report of the electrical section the names of these 7 consumers including that of the complainant excluded from the list.
The service connection given for agriculture purpose shall not be used for any other purpose and incase of violation the department cannot pay the bill. It was under such circumstances the bill during the period from 1/2001 to 5/2003 had not been paid. Complainant was explained these fact when he came to office. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 3rd opposite party.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1, and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3.
Issue Nos. 1 to 3
Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under Sharmasala Electrical section bearing consumer No.3423 for agriculture purpose and consumer No.3494 for domestic purposes. The case of the complainant is that on 20.1.2006 1st opposite party issued notice stating that the service connection 3423 has been under disconnection for more than 6months and demanding to clear the dues. On enquiry it is understood that the agricultural connection has been changed into that of domestic category and charges were computed as a domestic connection.
Now the connection dismantled. The opposite parties 1 and 2 on the other hand contended that the 1st opposite party noticed that the complainant used the electricity supply of agriculture connection for domestic purposes and it was intimated to 3rd opposite party. 3rd opposite party deleted his name from the list of free charge connection. The average consumption from this connection allowed was 10 units per month. But even in monsoon season the complainantís consumption was above the average consumption of 10 units.
The complainant misused the agriculture connection for domestic purpose. Agriculture department had not paid the bill. The bill was issued to complainant. The complainantís consumer number was not included in the list issued by Agricultural department in the year 2005. Complainantís bill was pending from 8/2002. Though notice was issued on 20.1.2006 complainant refused to accept it and it was pasted on the wall of the premises on 27.1.2006. Complainant made no payment even after that. No objection also filed. Since the disconnection exceeded 6 months the agricultural connection3423 was dismantled on 21.6.06.
It can be seen that the main case against the complainant is that he has misused the agricultural connection for domestic purpose. It is understandable that in the usual course the consumption will be very less in monsoon season. Complainant has not taken care to note the reading of the monsoon season. That means complainant is not able to say whether he has used electricity over and above the average limit or not. Ext.B1 meter reading register was produced by 1st opposite party. Ext.B1 shows that complainant has used more electricity during monsoon season.
Specific question was put to this witness PW1 ď Though the complainant has the case that there is motor for both his connections he has deposed in cross examination that ď It is not certain whether the complainant is having motor for his domestic connection In the absence of evidence whether he has motor for his domestic connection together with the high level consumption in the monsoon season leads to assume that he has misused the agricultural connection for domestic purpose.
There were 100 consumers in the panchayath who had been enjoying the opportunity of free service provided for agricultural purposes. The names of 7 out of this hundred happened to be cancelled on the reason that these consumers were misused the connection for other than agricultural purposes in which complainant is one among them. Complainant has no case that either the electricity Board or Agricultural Department is having any personal grudge to these 7 consumers separately. Then there is no reason to disbelieve the departments.
Both these departments are bound to take more care to prevent the misutilisation of free service which is absolutely meant for agricultural purpose. Many schemes introduced for the welfare of the society could not achieve fruitful result for reasons of misutilisation in large scale. Hence in the usual course one cannot blame the concerned departments for taking such steps in order to prevent misutilisation of a rightful facility for the better protection of class community..
More over, in the above case the complainant admittedly received notice on 201.06 by `1stopposite party stating that the service conenctionNo.3423 is under disconnection for more than 6 months and demanding to clear off the dues. What has been done by the complainant after receiving the notice is also a relevant question to be considered. The main allegation of the complainant or in other words the cornerstone of the complainantís case depends upon the allegation of non-issuing of notice. Complainant has admitted that on enquiry he has learnt that the connection has been changed into domestic connection. Complainant is an agriculturist qualified enough to enjoy the free service of electricity. The 3rd opposite party Krishi Bhavan is a Unit of agricultural department where the complainant is expected to have continuous connection and permanent link as an agriculturist.
The entire agricultural activities of govt. are performed through the Krishi Bhavan in a panchayath. Every agriculturist will have close connection with Krishi Bhavan. Thus it is quite usual that he will have full information with respect to the facilities that he has been enjoying through the Krishi Bhavan if he is a real agriculturist. Thus as a genuine agriculturist complainant, cannot pretend ignorance. Anyhow, complainant admitted that he has received notice on 20.1.2006. After receiving the notice the complainant agriculturist has not even approached the department to solve the issues.
Complainant has not even given an application to reconsider the question of his electricity free connection. The current bill for consumer No.3423 was issued to the complainant every bi-monthly. As a free consumer the complainant has an obligation to make assure that the bill has been paid. The complainant is enjoying a free connection. He should bear in mind that the money is paid by the Govt. on behalf of him and protecting his status as a consumer and thereby he is not expected to discard the obligation on his part to be aware of the state of affair to keep up the service smooth.
The complainant should have bear in mind that there are certain purpose for which the bill was issued to complainant though the amount has been paid by the Krishi Bhavan. The bill is issued to the complainant not for the purpose of getting mere satisfaction of passing information. He is duty bound to accept the bill and to handle it in proper way. Objection if any he could have approached the proper authority assessing officer or else the Krishi Bhvan then and there, for to take remedial measures. It is a fact that the Agricultural department had not paid the current bill from August 2002. The current bill for consumer No.3423 was issued to complainant every bimonthly.
Complainant himself admitted that he has received notice on 20.1.2006. He has also stated that 1st opposite party has been issuing bills for payment of current charges till June 2006. Complainant could understand on enquiry that the service connection 3423 for agricultural purpose has been changed into that of a connection for domestic purpose. Complainant has not filed objection to the notice issued to him on 20.1.2006. Complainant kept mum till the connection has been dismantled. A genuine agriculturist will definitely react as and when anything happens that adversely affect his agriculture. But the complainant herein did not mind even the notice on 20.1.2006 which resulted into dismantle.
This is a negative approach on the part of complainant which if encouraged shall spoil the very spirit of this type of schemes that meant for the poor agriculturists. Hence the opposite parties departments cannot be charged with deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled for any remedy. He is at liberty to approach the department concerned for to seek remedial measures and the Forum expect that the authorities shall deal the issue without any prejudice but helpful to find a final solution. Thus the issues 1 to 3 found against the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
How can i applied for electricity connection to my house in 3 cent plot (refused)
I am eldhose varghes,kothamangalam,ernakulam
I applied for new electricity connection to my newly build house but the application are refused by officer he said that present law not allowed to give electricity connection to house situated in 3 cent plot .my house is near to the public electric post and it has not enough courtyard . i started to build my house in 2008
Kindly request you to give me solution