V.J. Thomas
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst Engineer

KSEB
...........Respondent(s)






ORDER



The complainant is a consumer of first respondent vide consumer No.9253. The connection is to a service station namely National Auto Service Station. The complainant is conducting the service station as a means of livelihood by self employment. He is conducting the business since 20 years. The average consumption of electricity for 2 months was 750 units till 2005. From 2006 onwards the meter was defective and the consumption shown as more and the complainant intimated the matter to the first respondent. But it was not considered. Subsequently he made written complaints on 24/6/06 and 24/8/06. Later on 2/1/07 the respondent installed parallel meter and it was found increased unit of consumption.


So meter was replaced with a new one. Subsequently Exhibit P2 bill was issued. When complained against this bill, another bill was issued demanding to pay Rs.37196/- and was wanted to pay by 2 instalments. But from the issuance of Exhibit P1 and P2 notices, it is clear that the respondent made mistake. It shows deficiency in service of respondents. Hence dismiss the complaint.

2. Both the respondents called absent and set exparte.

3. To prove the case complainant filed affidavit and documents produced by him are marked as Exhibits P1 to P9.


4. Points: In the complaint it is stated that the complainant is conducting the Auto Service Station as a means of livelihood by self employment. But there is no evidence to show that he is conducting the service station as a means of livelihood. As per the notices issued by the K.S.E.B. the connection to the service station comes under 7A Tariff. It is a commercial tariff. As per Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 any service for consideration availed for commercial purpose does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.


In this case the complainant failed to prove that he is conducting the service station as a means of self employment. He does not even aver that there is only one man to conduct the business. Usually more than one person will engage in the activities of service station. He not even produced any document to show that he is doing the business as self employment. So the complaint will not stand here.

5. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

Nandakumar.P.B.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Assistant Executive Engineer

KSEB

Nabeesakutty

Abdul Majeed
...........Respondent(s)






ORDER



Complainant is the owner of Sandhya College & Commercial Institution. He is a tenant of Abdul Majeed Haji and conducting the institute in the said building. He is the consumer of respondents vide Consumer No.2649. He has paid the electricity bills regularly. While so the landlord demanded increased rent and tried to evict the complainant from the building. So the complainant approached the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad by filing OS 1065/04 and obtained an injunction order restraining the respondents from disconnecting the electricity. Subsequently under the enmity the landlord instigated the earlier landlord to put an application before the K.S.E.B and on 7/1/05 the power supply was disconnected. This caused very inconvenience to the complainant. Hence this complaint.

The averments in the counter of 1st and 2nd respondents are as follows:
2. As per records of K.S.E.B Consumer No.2649 stands in the name of Mohammed Kassim. He has submitted an application on 3/1/05 requesting dismantling of electric connection and the connection was dismantled on 7/1/05. Subsequently the complainant come to the office of 1st respondent and submitted a letter requesting to restore the dismantled connection. Along with the letter he submitted an injunction order issued by Munsiff Court, Chavakkad.


The complainant has stated that about 10 persons are working in his institute. He is occupying the building and enjoying the electricity without the approval or willingness of the building owner. So he is not a consumer. Since the complainant is running a commercial institute employing about 10 people he does not include the purview of Consumer Act. He has no claim that he is using electricity for his livelihood by self employment. When the complainant came to the office of 1st respondent, it was come to know that it is the complainant who is remitting current charges. But as the connection was already been dismantled, the complainant was advised to take a fresh connection.


To this he was agreed but was not turned up. The dismantled connection was restored as per the order of the Forum. Since an injunction order from the Munsiff Court is pending the complainant was supposed to approach the Munsiff Court and so obtain the restoration of electric supply. The registered consumer is Mohammed Kassim and the respondents have the responsibility to honour his request. These respondents acted as per the rules. The respondents have no information that electricity has extended from Consumer No.2649 to the complainant’s institute and he is paying the current charge. Hence dismiss the complaint.

The counter of additional respondents 3 and 4 is as follows:
3. These respondents are necessary parties in the complaint and impleaded as per the order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Complainant is a tenant of these respondents and has no other rights. At the time of taking the electricity connection to the complainant’s institute there was stipulation that the complainant has to pay the electricity charges. But the complainant unauthorisedly extended supply to the institute from the ground floor. So the connection was disconnected by the 1st respondent. Complainant was not a consumer at any time. These respondents are parties in OS.1062/04 pending before the Chavakkad Munsiff Court and contesting the case. The demand of increased rent is lawful. The unauthorized use of electricity by complainant is to be restrained. The order to restore the electricity is to be cancelled. Hence dismiss the complaint.

4. The points for consideration are :
1) Is there any deficiency in service?
2) If so reliefs and costs?

5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P5 and Exhibits R1 to R3.

6. The case is filed to get restoration of the electricity supply which was disconnected by the respondents and also for compensation. The case of complainant is that he is a tenant of one Abdul Majeed Haji and taken a building for rent and conducting an institute namely Sandhya College and Commercial Institute. The electricity Consumer No. to that building is 2649 and he is the consumer. According to him he has paid the electricity bills regularly. He further states that due to a dispute regarding the rent the landlord tried to evict him from the building and he filed OS.1065/04 before the Munsiff Court Chavakkad and obtained an injunction order against disconnection of electricity. According to him upon this grudge he compelled the earlier owner to apply to KSEB for disconnection of power supply and it was disconnected by the respondents and so he has filed this complaint.

7. In the counter 1st and 2nd respondents stated that as per records of KSEB the Consumer No.2649 stands in the name of Mohammed Kassim. The connection was dismantled only on application by him. After the dismantling the complainant came to their office with request to restore the dismantled connection. The connection was restored as per the order of this Forum. They further stated that since original suit is pending before the Munsiff Court and an injunction order is obtained, the complainant was supposed to approach the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. So according to them they have no liability towards the complainant.

8. The respondents 3 and 4 who were impleaded additionally stated that the complainant has unauthorisedly misused the electricity. The complainant was not a consumer at any time. This complaint is filed by colluding with respondents 1 and 2. In OS.1065/04 these respondents are the opposite parties and contesting the matter. The order to restore the dismantled connection is to be set aside.

9. The reliefs sought by the complainant are restoration of electric connection and also for compensation. It is admitted by all the parties that OS.1065/04 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad regarding rent control matters. In that suit the respondents 1 and 2 are not parties. The respondents 1 and 2 produced the copy of injunction order. In that order the respondents are restrained from disconnecting the electricity. The order was dated 30/11/04.


The defendants in that case are respondents 3 and 4 in this case. So it is true that the land lord Abdul Majeed may instigate Mohammed Kassim to put application before KSEB for disconnect the electricity. In the counter all the respondents stated that the complainant has unauthorisedly used the electricity. Being no parties to the suit the injunction order is not applicable to KSEB. So up on the application of a third party the KSEB dismantled the connection. According to the KSEB as per their records the original consumer is Mohammed Kassim.


The change of land owners not intimated to the KSEB timely. So there is no deficiency in service can be seen from the Board. They stated that up on application of the consumer as per their records they acted up on. There is also no evidence brought by the complainant to show that up on the instigation of 3rd respondent Mohammed Kassim put application to KSEB for dismantling connection. As stated by KSEB the complainant had to approach the Munsiff Court for appropriate remedy. There was strict order against the defendants i.e. the respondents 3 and 4 in this case not to disconnect the electricity supply. If any violation the complainant had to take action against the parties in that suit itself. He did not do so. So he is not entitled for any reliefs sought.

10. The first relief is sought for restoration of connection. He is only a tenant and not a consumer. If any curtailment in the amenities enjoyed by him, he has to approach the rent control Court and not Consumer foras. More over the KSEB acted as per law and not liable for payment of compensation to the consumer. In the absence of evidence against respondents 3 and 4 they are also not liable to compensate the complainant. It was the best way to the complainant to approach the Munsiff Court and proceed against the respondents. The complainant miserably failed to establish his case.

11. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

R.A. Hassan
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Assistant Engineer

KSEB
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER





The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the respondents vide consumer No.A-746. He paid the electricity charges regularly. But a notice dated 28.9.06 was issued by the respondent demanding to deposit Rs.603/- as security. This notice is illegal. The notice does not contain any reading and such other details. So the complainant is not liable to pay the amount stated in the notice. Hence this complaint.

2. The averments in the counter of respondents are as follows. The connection to consumer No.A-746 is for domestic purpose. The notice was issued as per Section 47(2) of Electricity Act and Clause 13(4) and 13(4) of Supply Code. On 28.9.06 a notice was issued by permitting 30 days time to pay the bill. The notice was issued by complying all the formalities of law. Hence dismiss the complaint.

3. The points for consideration are:

(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 and Exts. R1 and R2.

5. Points-1 & 2: The case of complainant is that he has no arrears in electricity charges. But Ext. P1 notice was issued to pay Rs.603/- as additional security deposit. Sine has no arrears, he is not liable to pay the amount stated Ext. P1.

6. In the counter the respondents stated that the bill was issued as per Indian Electricity Act and Supply Code.

7. It is mandatory that 30 days time be given for payment of additional cash deposit. Ext. P1 is the notice demanding additional cash deposit shows that it was issued on 28.9.06. The date of payment stated as 28.10.06. So it can be considered that 30 days was given to the complainant for payment of amount. But it was not paid by the complainant by challenging that it is illegal. No evidence and no document produced by the complainant to establish that Ext. P1 is illegal and baseless. Ext. R2 is the copy of details of A.C.D. notice. It clearly shows how they arrived at Rs.603/-. No counter evidence adduced by the complainant. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount.

8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay the Ext. P1 notice amount within one month. If not, the respondents are at liberty to disconnect the power supply.

Thankamma,Kollethu Padinjattathil
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Asst. Exe. Engineer,K.S.E.B.,Anchalummoodu

The Executive Engineer,K.S.E.B.,Kollam

The Secretary,Vaidhyuthi Bhavan,Pattom
...........Respondent(s)




ORDER


The complaint is filed for getting a direction for reconnection of Electric supply and compensation and cost.



The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:



Aggravated by a complaint lodged before Dist. Collector about a connection granted by the opp.parties through over the premises of the complainant, the 1st opp.party disconnected Electric Connection in the premises of the complainant. The learning of the complainant is daughter interrupted and complainant has sustained losses because of this illegal act. Hence the complaint.


The opp.party 1 and 2 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant violated Indian Electricity Act 2003 by cutting down Electric line to her neighours’s house. Both lines to her and her neighbour Vijayakumari is starting from the same end of an electric line from the adjacent Electrical Post. The act of complainant caused disconnection of both connection at the starting end of the lines from the Electric post. The opp.party lodged a complaint before Anchalummoodu Police Station on 28.12.2005. The Electric line of Vijaykumari is passing through the pathway to her house and not over the house of complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.



The complainant filed affidavit. PW.1 examined. Exts. P1 and P2 were marked. From the side of opp.parties.



DW.1 examined. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked. Heard both sides.



The points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party?

2. Compensation and costs.



Points 1 and 2



The allegation of the complainant is that the opp.parties disconnected Electric Connection in her premises because of the opp.parties have aggravated by the complaint lodged by her before the District Collector.



The complainant failed to prove her allegation that opp.parties purposefully disconnected Electric Supply. On a careful verification of documents we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. As per the order of Consumer Disputes Redressal forum, Kollam dated 31.10.2001 Electric Connection was reconnected. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or other reliefs as prayed for



In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

E P Jose,S/o Varghese,Edasserikunnil House,Meppadi Post,Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Executive Engineer,K S E B, Meppadi.

The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vydyuthi Bavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

...........Respondent(s)






ORDER





The Complainant is the consumer of connection No.9738, which is a domestic connection. The registered owner of this connection is Mr. Mathew, Chirayil House from whom the Complainant purchased the house.




2. On 30.8.2008 the Regional Audit Officer of the Opposite Party along with Sub Engineer came to the premises of the connection and gave a notice stating that the complainant is using the premises as the office of the mill. The Opposite Party issued a bill for Rs.9,091/- on 29.9.2008. The Complainant in using the connection exclusively for domestic purpose. The Opposite Party has issued the bill under LT VIIA tariff without any reason. This is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order quashing the bill for Rs. 9,091/- and directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/-.




3. The Opposite Parties appeared and filed version. They state that the Complainant is not a consumer as far as connection No.9738 concerned. The disputed bill is issued to one Mathew, Chirayil House, Thazhe Arappetta, Meppadi, who is the registered owner of connection No.9738. If the Complainant has purchased the above said premises, he should have intimated the same to the Opposite Party and should have get it registered in his name. The Complainant has not done so.



4. It is true that the Regional Audit Officer of K.S.E.B along with the Sub Engineer of Electrical Major Section, Meppady has inspected the premises of the electrical connection No.9738. The connection was given for domestic purpose. But at the time of inspection it was seen that a part of the premises is used as the Office of a saw mill. This is without the knowledge and permission of the K.S.E.B. So this is misuse of tariff and a penal bill for Rs.9,091 was issued to the Complainant as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. All the facts noticed at the time of inspection were recorded in the site mahazar and the Complainant has signed it acknowledging the statements made therein. The disputed bill was issued as per rules and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.


5. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Opposite Party was examined as OPW1 the document was marked as Ext.B1 on the side of the Opposite Party.




6. The matters to be considered as follows.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?




7. Point No.1:- The site Mahazar (Ext.B1) states that the premises of connection No.9738 is partially used as the office of a saw mill. Ext.B1 does not mention about the particulars. No office staff or no office materials found at the time of inspection. Ext.B1 clearly states that the premises is used for residential purpose also. Even then the entire connection is

entirely charged twice under VII A tariff as penal charge for misuse of tariff. Ext.A4 shows that there is separate office for the saw mill. As per Ext.A4, the saw mill and its office is purchased by the Complainant in the year 1996. Ext.A3 shows that the building in dispute is purchased by the Complainant in 2003. This shows that the mill and its office are separate from the disputed premises and electric connection. Therefore, the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party.




8. Point No.2:- Since the disputed bill Ext.A2 is found issued without any basis or reason, the Complainant is entitled to get it quashed. Hence the bill dated 29.9.2008 for Rs.9,091/- (Rupees Nine thousand and Ninety One only) is quashed. No order as to cost or compensation.

K.M.Basheer
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst.Engineer

Kerala State Electricity Board
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER





The complainant’s 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 complainant’s 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.

M.L. Joy.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Secretory, kseb

Assistant Engineer,Kseb
...........Respondent(s)




ORDER




Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party electricity board with vide consumer No. 11939. Petitioner is conducting a milk Freezing Plant, with SSI registration as a means of his livelihood. According to the petitioner electric connection was given to him after conducting proper inspection and satisfaction of the opposite party since day light is there no seperate light is needed for the petitioner. So, no o light meter along with light point was installed at the premises of the petitioner . According to the petitioner he is regularly remitting ther bill amount as per the demand of the opposite party. On 21..4..2008 petitioner was served with a bill for an amount of Rs. 18817/-. According to the petitioner issuance of the said bill is illegal and is clear deficiency of service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill dtd: 21..4..2008 and also for a

-2-

direction of the Forum to not to disconnect of the electric connection of the petitioner and he prays for Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party apart from the power point a seperate light point is necessary for the petitioners premises. As per law all industrial consumers shall segragate the light load and power load and metered seperately. Audit wing of the opposite party find the said abnormality and the bill was issued as per their direction and according to them there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced the disputed demand notice bill dated 21..4..2008 for an amount of Rs.18817/- and said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 reason for the demand is stated as light load not segregated. In the present case there is no site inspection done by the opposite party. No mahazar prepared further more there is nothing to prove that the light load and power load and metered by same meter. The officials of the opposite party has a bounden duty to inspect the premises and give appropriate direction for segregation before giving connection to the consumer. Further more if the




-3-

case of the opposite party is believed then ny non segregation the petitioner had forced to remit electrical charges for the light point consumption in a greater tariff and by the said act opposite party is gained and as such no loss is sustained to the opposite party. The petitioner on the otherhand sustained loss. In our opinion the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed and petitioner is

entitled to relief sought for. The bill issued by the opposite party Dtd: 21..4..2008 for an amount of Rs. 18,817/- is cancelled. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Opposite party can adjust said amount in the future bill of the petitioner. Since there is no evidence with regard to loss and sufferings, no compensation is ordered.

A.V.Pushpavally,

Nisha Jewellary Works,

Near K.K.Residencey, Complainant

Old Bus stand, Payyannur.





M/s.Hindustan Business Corporation,

Near KSEB,

Sara Complex, Opposite party

South Bazar, Payyanur.



O R D E R






This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.3995/- the value of mixie along with compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost.

The complainant’s case is that she had booked for an instagrind mixie by giving Rs.100/- on 25.2.2008 from opposite party in an exhibition at Police maidan, Payyannur. On 31.5.08, the opposite party had given delivery of the same by receiving the balance purchase amount of Rs.3895/-. But within one month itself it became defective and the same was intimated to opposite party and they come after 3 days and repaired the same. But again it became defective and the opposite party had taken back the mixie and returned it back by saying that they had replaced the motor of the same. But there after it is not in a position to use it for grinding. Again during 2009 March the opposite party had taken back the same along with 4jars. But they retuned back the mixie only. So the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to opposite party but the same was returned unclaimed. Hence this complaint.

On receiving the complaint the forum has issued notice to opposite party but it was returned unclaimed and hence the opposite party was called absent and set exparte.

The main point to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

1The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed in lieu of evidence Exts.A1 to A5.

The Ext.A1 and A2 is the warranty card with brochure and e bill. This document proves that the complainant has purchased an instagrind mixie from opposite party for an amount of Rs.3995/- on 31.5.2008. As per Ext.A1 it has a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. from 31.5.08. The complainant’s case is that it became defective within one month itself and had issued notice to opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party had repaired it; the mixie is not in working condition. The opposite party has neither turned before the Forum nor filed version or produced any contra evidence.


This itself shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence we are of the opinion there is deficiency on the part of opposite party for which they are liable. So the opposite party is bound either to replace the mixie having sufficient warranty or to return back the purchase price f Rs.3995/- to the complainant. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party either to replace the mixie with a new one with sufficient warranty or to refund the purchase price of Rs.3995/-. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation including the cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act. The complainant is also directed to return back the mixie on the event of such receipt.

Mathodan Pavithran,

Kolmotta, P.O.Parassinikadavu. Complainant

(Rep. by Adv.C.Krishnan)



1. Asst.Engineer,

Electrical section, KSEB,

Dharmasala, Parassinikkadavu.P.O.

2. Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board, opposite parties

Vyduithi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram.



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 ½ 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 complainant’s 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 complainant’s 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 complainant’s consumer number was not included in the list issued by Agricultural department in the year 2005. Complainant’s 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 “ Though the complainant has the case that there is motor for both his connections he has deposed in cross examination that “ 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 complainant’s 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.

V.K.KUHABDULLA
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

ASSST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

CHAIRMAN,KSEB
...........Respondent(s)


ORDER






The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and he was having four electric connections with consumer Nos. G-82, G-109, E-29 VLY and A-1690, of which the first two connections were agricultural, the third commercial and the last domestic connection. Disputes had started from 2001 onwards regarding unauthorized and excessive billing, which finally culminated in O.P. No.155/04 filed before this Forum. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed their version. The frequent failure in the supply is seen admitted therein regarding the connection to the oil/flour mill. When the opposite parties did not appear in spite of several chances given to them, this Forum had set them exparte and after considering the materials available before this Forum including the version and document submitted by the opposite parties, was pleased to allow the complaint as per order dated 9.8.2005 and directed the opposite parties to reinstate the electric connection.


There was no direction for payment of any amount whereby the contentions raised by the opposite parties were negative. The opposite parties had reinstated the electricity connection of the complainant only on 10.10.2005 and took an endorsement to that effect. Thereafter the opposite parties had been sending false and baseless bills for the periods when the connection was not there and the complainant had through his lawyer issued a registered notice dated 22.10.2005 bringing the same to the notice of the opposite parties.


Upon receipt of the said lawyer notice the opposite parties had again disconnected the connections without any notice whatsoever thus rendering the decision of the Forum a mockery. The complainant was constrained to file execution proceedings as E.P.No.8/06, and the same was dismissed as there was no representation from the side of complainant. He received a notice dated 20.7.2006 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vatakara North demanding payment of Rs.20,925/- claiming it to be alleged arrears for the period from 2/04 to 2/06 of the electricity connection E-29.


It is illegal and against the earlier order of the Forum. The charges for short period for which the connection was resumed the complainant is always ready and willing to pay, but the same can and will not be Rs.20,925/-, because the complainant is not liable to pay any amount as alleged arrears or otherwise until the date of the order in O.P. No.155/04 and thereafter he is only liable and responsible for the actual energy consumed. Therefore praying for setting aside the bills/demand notice issued by the opposite parties and other allied relief, the above complaint is filed.



Opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a detailed version contenting that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties, that the complainant is not an agriculturist, but a trader by profession, that the bills issued are proper and correct, that the complainant is a defaulter who owes a huge amount to the Board, that the order in O.P.155/04 was duly complied and that the service was again disconnected for non-payment of arrears, that the complainant could have availed the benefits of schemes like one time settlement and paid the current charge regularly if he had an ardent wish and extreme need of energy and in short, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



An interim order restraining the opposite parties from removing the meter and from taking Revenue Recovery proceedings was granted in I.A. No.183/06 as per order dated 17.8.2006. An advocate Commissioner was deputed in the matter and he has filed a report dated 5.10.2006. Evidence in the matter consists of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and document marked as Exts. A1 to A10 and Ext. C1. No evidence, oral or documentary has been adduced on the part of the opposite parties:



Points for consideration: 1) Whether the complaint is maintainable? (2) Whether there is any negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? (3) What order as to relief and costs?



Point No.1: Admittedly the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. Allegations are made regarding negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. What is seen set out in the complaint is a consumer dispute as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Further no serious contentions regarding maintainability of the complaint is seen raised during arguments on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we find that the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum.



Point No.2: Admittedly an earlier complaint was filed as O.P. No.155/04 before this Forum by the complainant. The same was relating to the four connections covered in the present complaint as well. Ext. A1 is the copy of complaint. It is seen contented that the complainant has been using the agricultural connections for operating two pump sets for irrigating his banana, vegetable and grass cultivation. For domestic purpose there is a separate motor installed at his house.


Towards the end of the year 2001, for the last three months or so, G-109, connection was hardly being used. But on 10.12.01 the complainant received a bill for an amount of Rs.55/- which was highly excessive, as the normal bill was only Rs.32/-. A submission in writing was given before the concerned KSEB office but since there was no response at all, a complaint was lodged before the Executive Engineer, KSEB, Vatakara on 4.1.2002 and a copy was issued to the Chief Engineer, KSEB, Calicut. G-82 connection was being paid for by the Agricultural Department.


Suddenly the connection was disconnected without any notice to the complainant and on 2.8.2002 a bill for an amount of Rs.87/- was issued to the complainant. It was disconnected stating that the said connection was being used for alleged domestic purposes and that bill was issued for prior usage also. There is a house connection and the house is kept locked as the owner and family are abroad and the minimum charges whatever applicable are being regularly paid. The complainant submitted a complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Calicut and the Divisional Engineer, KSEB, Vatakara. But they have not even responded to his complaint.


He had to discontinue irrigation at both his lands and consequentially lost the benefits he was availing of from the Agricultural Department on account of the act and conduct on the part of the opposite parties. On 5.11.2003 he received two notices from KSEB stating that his two connections, viz., G-82 and G-109 were disconnected for more than 6 months as he had not paid arrears due. He was asked to clear the dues immediately, failing which the meters would be removed and Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated against him. The opposite parties had not replied for the letters issued by the complainant and gave a deaf ear to the grievances of the complainant. The action of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.


The Industrial connection E-29 to his oil/flour mill runs by him for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. In this contrary to the understanding a three-phase connection was not given to him and only a single phase was given, on that a motor could not be run in the oil/flour mill. Thus he was forced to send a complaint to the Chief Engineer at Calicut on 27.12.2001. Thereafter a three-phase connection was given. During that period due to some personal problems and lack of adequate business, the mill had to be temporarily closed from 14.2.2004 onwards. The last meter reading was taken on 11.2.2004. But the complainant was issued a bill dated 17.3.2004 for an amount of Rs.3968/-.


The same has been issued without taking any meter reading. A complaint was submitted before the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Vatakara on 26.3.2004. The same has also met with the same fate as that of the previous letters sent by the complainant. Even till the date of closure of the mill, all the three-phases of the connection never worked properly. As he has lost the benefits due to him from the Agricultural Department, the complainant was constrained to file a complaint before this Forum as O.P. No.155/04. The opposite parties had filed a detailed version marked as Ext. A2 raising similar contentions as in this case as well.


The frequent failure in the supply is seen admitted therein regarding the connection to the oil/flour mill. They had even contended that a sum of Rs.1004/-, Rs.1597/- and Rs.5050/- were due from the connections G-82 VLY, G-109 VLY and E-29 VLY for the periods from March 2000 to June 2004 and February 2000 to May 2004 respectively and further stating that in the event of failure to remit the said alleged arrears, the services are liable to be dismantled and Revenue Recovery action initiated for realizing the dues.


They had specifically contended payment of the aforementioned amounts was a precondition for reinstating the connections. The complainant had filed an application as I.A.No.76/05 for causing production of the certified copies of the extracts of the entries in the complaint book made by him since 1998, which is marked as Ext. A3. The contentions of the complainant that the opposite parties finding that the case and claim set out by them was untenable and unsustainable and a decision was likely to be rendered against them did not willfully participate in the further proceedings before this Forum appears to be very probable from the facts and circumstances.


When the opposite parties did not appear in spite of several chances given to them, this Forum had set them exparte and after considering the materials available before this Forum including the version and document submitted by the opposite parties had allowed the complaint as per order dated 9.8.2005 and directed the opposite parties to reinstate the electric connection. There was no direction for payment of any amount whereby the contentions raised by the opposite parties were negative. The copy of the said order is marked as Ext. A4. There was non compliance of the order and Ext. A5 lawyer notice is seen issued. Electricity connection is reinstated on 10.10.2005 and thereafter a bill for the periods when the connection was not there were issued by the opposite parties, another lawyer notice , Ext. A6 is seen issued.


The electricity connections were disconnected on the ground of non-payment of the bills, another lawyer notice Ext. A7 is seen issued on 5.12.2005 and still the electricity supply was not reinstated. E.P.8/06 marked as Ext. A8 is seen filed, but the same was dismissed for default on 10.3.2006. Thereafter the complainant received a notice dated 20.7.2006 demanding payment of Rs.20925/- being arrears for the period from 2/04 to 2/06 of the electricity connection E-29, which is marked as Ext. A9. A reply marked as Ext. A10 is seen issued.

Our predecessor after considering the rival contentions, passed the following order dated 9.8.2005 in O.P. No.155/04, viz. Ext. A4 “the complaint is filed for reinstating the connection etc. The opposite party is called absent and set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A8. From the affidavit and Ext. A1 to A8 the complainant’s case is proved. In the result petition is allowed and the opposite party is ordered to reinstate the electric connection. Pronounced in open Court this the 3rd day of August 2005”. The opposite parties never challenged the order of this Forum claiming payment of any arrears before giving reinstatement of the connection. After the above order was passed the electricity connection was resumed and made available to the complainant only for a few days and thereafter the same was illegally and unauthorisedly disconnected again.


All the three connections aforementioned are remaining as disconnected and there is no electricity supply. In view of the order in O.P. No.155/04, which remains unchallenged and fully accepted by the opposite parties, they cannot claim any amount till the reinstatement in compliance of the said order. It is pertinent to point out that the opposite parties in the said case had a specific contention that arrears as demanded by them will have to be paid for effecting reconnection and stating that it is an essential precondition.


The said contention of the opposite parties is not seen accepted by the Forum. Hence we hold that the opposite parties, KSEB is only entitled to demand and collect the electricity charges which accrues after the reconnection as stipulated in the said order. Demand of alleged arrears for the prior period which has not been accepted or permitted in the earlier order and disconnection of the electricity connection on the ground of nonpayment of such improper, unauthorized and illegal bills amounts to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.



Point No.3: The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury sustained by him on account of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C1 report has stated that there is no electricity connections, there is no supply of electricity to the three connection, G-82, G-109 and E-29 and that the machinery and motor in the oil/flour mill at connection E-29 the pump set and motors at the electrical connections G-82 and G-109 were rusted, damaged and unusable on account of nonuser as there is no electrical supply. Jet pump with motor is found rusted and unusable damage to the crops is also seen reported. The machinery also is reported to be rusted and rendered completely useless. The Commissioner has opined that the replacement of the rusted pump sets and machinery will cost about Rs.1.7 lakhs at the present market rate.


The loss and damage on account of loss of income from the mills and machinery and also loss in agricultural income is not assessed by the Advocate Commissioner. The Commissioner has reported that the damage caused to the machinery and pump set is due to nonuse which was resulted from the non-supply of electricity by the opposite parties. The report is seen dated 5.10.2006. The opposite parties have not filed any objections to the said report nor challenged the same or adduced by contra evidence. They have not examined any witness and were not able to effectively discredit the complainant in the cross examination.


The pump sets being used for agricultural purposes has been rendered useless and defective. The entire cultivation is lost and serious damage has been caused to the coconut and araconut trees. Likewise because of nonuser the oil expeller, copra cutting machine, the machineries in flour mill including the milling machine have also become defective and nonfunctional whereby causing loss and injury to the complainant. The only reason for non removal of the meter and harassment by way of coercive Revenue Recovery steps appears to be on account of the interim order dated 17.8.2006 in I.A. No.183/06.


The complainant relies on II 1992 CPJ 454 (NC) Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. M/s. Gujarat Cycles and another wherein it has been held that the reason stated by the lower Forum that the complainant has not adduced any detailed evidence furnishing particulars of the nature of inconvenience caused to him and hence not entitled to any relief is not correct or sound and that the Forums constituted under the Act has to take a realistic and pragmatic view in matters coming before them and where it is manifest that real inconvenience has been caused to complainant, it is the duty of the Forum to determine and award reasonable compensation without insisting that the complainant should perform the impossible task of furnishing particulars in regard to the nature of inconvenience suffered by him.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others, 2000 (III)CPR 1 (SC) has held that while quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purposes of recompensing the individual, but also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. In paragraph 13, it is further held that it is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments etc. suffered by the complainant which is in issue, it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to be found in a case of proven negligence.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994 (1) SC 243 has held the jurisdiction and power of the Courts to indemnify a citizen for injury suffered due to abuse of power by public authorities is founded as observed by Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Broome, 1972 AC 1027, on the principle that an award of exemplary damages can serve a useful purpose in vindicating the strength of law. An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law it acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes Vs. Barnard 1964 AC 1129 it was observed by Lord Devlin.


The servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to heir duty of service. A public functionary if be acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but to abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behavior then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance.


Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil.


It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook and so observing further held under our constitution sovereignty vests in the people. Every limb of the constitutional machinery is obliged to be people oriented. No functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself. Public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before authorities created under the Statute like the Commission or the Courts entrusted with responsibility of maintaining the rule of law.


Each hierarchy in the Act is empowered to entertain a complaint by the consumer for value of the goods or services and compensation. The word compensation is again of very wide connotation. It has not been defined in the Act. According to dictionary it means, compensating or being compensated, thing given as recompense. In legal sense it may constitute actual loss or expected injury or loss. Therefore when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation it has to be construed widely enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer which in law is otherwise included in wide meaning of compensation.


The provision in our opinion enables a consumer to claim and empowers the commission to redress any injustice done to him. Any other construction would defeat the very purpose of the Act. The Commission or the Forum in the Act is thus entitled to award not only value of the goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. Thus keeping in view of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble National Commission and upon consideration of all the relevant matters in issue and especially conduct of the opposite parties we grand the following relief:-



(1) Ext. A9 demand notice is hereby set aside and the opposite parties are directed to reconnect the electricity connection to the complainant and issue fresh bills for the energy consumed after such reconnection as well as for the energy actually consumed for the short period from 10.10.2005 till the earlier disconnection. It is made clear that the opposite parties are not entitled to demand or recover any amount towards arrears of electricity charges till the reconnection on 10.10.2005.



(2) The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the loss, injury and damage sustained by him on account of the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.



(3) The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as costs to the complainant.



The amounts aforementioned shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.



Finally we reiterate the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority case regarding recovery of the amount awarded from the erring officers. It was held by the Supreme Court that when the Court directs payment of damages or compensation against the State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. It is the tax payers’ money which is paid for inaction of those who are entrusted under the Act to discharge their duties in accordance with law.


It was further held that it is therefore, necessary that the Commission when it is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then it should further direct the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries. Hence it is further directed that the K S E B shall take emergent steps to recover the amount awarded as damages from those employees who are found liable and responsible for the above acts instead of passing on the burden to the common tax payer.

A.V.Pushpavally,

Nisha Jewellary Works,

Near K.K.Residencey, Complainant

Old Bus stand, Payyannur.





M/s.Hindustan Business Corporation,

Near KSEB,

Sara Complex, Opposite party

South Bazar, Payyanur.



O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to refund Rs.3995/- the value of mixie along with compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost.

The complainant’s case is that she had booked for an instagrind mixie by giving Rs.100/- on 25.2.2008 from opposite party in an exhibition at Police maidan, Payyannur. On 31.5.08, the opposite party had given delivery of the same by receiving the balance purchase amount of Rs.3895/-. But within one month itself it became defective and the same was intimated to opposite party and they come after 3 days and repaired the same. But again it became defective and the opposite party had taken back the mixie and returned it back by saying that they had replaced the motor of the same. But there after it is not in a position to use it for grinding. Again during 2009 March the opposite party had taken back the same along with 4jars. But they retuned back the mixie only. So the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to opposite party but the same was returned unclaimed. Hence this complaint.

On receiving the complaint the forum has issued notice to opposite party but it was returned unclaimed and hence the opposite party was called absent and set exparte.

The main point to be decided in this case is whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

1The evidence in this case consists of the chief affidavit filed in lieu of evidence Exts.A1 to A5.

The Ext.A1 and A2 is the warranty card with brochure and e bill. This document proves that the complainant has purchased an instagrind mixie from opposite party for an amount of Rs.3995/- on 31.5.2008. As per Ext.A1 it has a warranty of 12 months from the date of purchase i.e. from 31.5.08. The complainant’s case is that it became defective within one month itself and had issued notice to opposite party. Eventhough the opposite party had repaired it; the mixie is not in working condition. The opposite party has neither turned before the Forum nor filed version or produced any contra evidence.


This itself shows the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence we are of the opinion there is deficiency on the part of opposite party for which they are liable. So the opposite party is bound either to replace the mixie having sufficient warranty or to return back the purchase price f Rs.3995/- to the complainant. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same.

In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party either to replace the mixie with a new one with sufficient warranty or to refund the purchase price of Rs.3995/-. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation including the cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of consumer protection act. The complainant is also directed to return back the mixie on the event of such receipt.

K. P. Harilal
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst. Engineer

KSEB
...........Respondent(s)




ORDER




The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the respondents having consumer No.5488/P. The respondents issued a bill for an amount of Rs.54,917/- as the electricity charges for the consumption from 2/2000 to 12/2000. The issuance of such a bill is illegal. The complainant thinks that the electric meter installed by the respondents is defective.


The complainant paid an amount of Rs.49,885/- under protest. Besides the above said bill, the respondents also issued another bills demanding extra charges. The respondents never taken readings within 6 months. After disconnection also the respondents issued bills. The bills issued by the respondents are on an experimental basis. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence the complaint.

2. The counter filed by the respondents is as follows: The consumer No.5488/P is allotted to one Mr. Kochiparambath Krishnan for commercial purpose having 4KW connected load. The said connection was used for cable TV network by his tenant named Mr. Nithyanandan, S/o. Nadupurakkal Sankaran, Perinjanam. The monthly charges paid were Rs.1160/- as per the provisional invoice card. When reading was taken as per tariff revision it was found that the consumer is liable to pay Rs.67,670/-. So after deducting Rs.12,740/- which was paid earlier, the demand notice was given for an amount of Rs.54,930/-.


The bills are issued legally and the complainant’s meter is not having any defect. Even a small scale cable TV net work operators are using more than thousand units of electricity. The instalment payment was allowed as per the demand of the complainant as the reading was not taken within 6 months. The power supply was disconnected on 9.3.2001. The meter was not removed as the complainant did not put application for that and also there was instalment payment for an amount of Rs.7080/- on 23.11.2002.


The complainant is liable to pay a fixed amount per month, as the meter is not removed. On 4/2003 the meter was removed. The complainant paid only Rs.49,870/- out of Rs.1,16,314/- and has a balance amount of Rs.66,444/- to pay. The respondents demanded legal amount. The tenant did not pay the electric charges and made the arrears. The respondents are going to take R.R. proceedings to get the arrears. The respondents are ready to give the statement which was demanded by the complainant. Hence dismiss.

3. The points for consideration are:

(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R6.

5. Points-1 & 2: The case is filed to get cancellation of the disputed bills. The complainant seeks to cancel a bill issued by the respondents for Rs.54,917/-. He has paid Rs.49,885/- towards the electricity charges under protest. The complainant produced copy of lawyer notices and is marked as Exts. P1 and P2. He did not even produce the copy of disputed bill. The respondents produced copy of documents and are marked as Exts. R1 to R6. According to the respondents after renewal of Tariff cut off reading was taken and was found that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.67,670/-. So according to them after deducting the amount paid as per the invoice demand notice was issued for Rs.54,930/-.


But the date of cut off reading is not stated anywhere. Exts. R5 and R6 are the requests made by the complainant to the Board. In both these applications it is stated that complaints were put before the Apex Office of the first respondent. So the bill issued by the respondents is not admitted by him and challenged in limine. He paid some amount only to maintain the connection. Ext. R3 is the copy of calculation statement of arrears up to 4/03. The balance amount to be remitted shown as Rs.66,331/- as on 4/03. The remitted amount is deducted.


The surcharge shown as Rs.40,712/-. In the counter the respondents stated that after taking cut off reading it was found that the complainant had to pay Rs.67,670/-. The date of reading not specified. The surcharge, which is imposing for belated payment, is not liable to pay by the complainant. The belated payment was only due to the default on the part of the respondents. The consumer is not liable for this type of acts of the respondents.

6. In the complaint the reliefs sought are cancellation of bills and production of statement showing the entire accounts. He also states return of paid amount. The bills which are to be cancelled do not produced. The statement which is needed by the complainant to peruse is to be produced by application before the Forum. From the records submitted by the respondents it is seen that the amounts seen to be remitted is liable to be paid by the complainant.


But we are inclined to exonerate the liability of the complainant in payment of surcharge. The balance amount as on 4/03 was Rs.66,331/-. The complainant is liable to pay only the amount after deducting surcharge with interest at the rate of 12%. Since there is no date of issuance of Ext. R3 we are ordering interest from today only.

K. P. Harilal
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Asst. Engineer

KSEB
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER


The case of complainant is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the respondents having consumer No.5488/P. The respondents issued a bill for an amount of Rs.54,917/- as the electricity charges for the consumption from 2/2000 to 12/2000. The issuance of such a bill is illegal. The complainant thinks that the electric meter installed by the respondents is defective. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.49,885/- under protest. Besides the above said bill, the respondents also issued another bills demanding extra charges.


The respondents never taken readings within 6 months. After disconnection also the respondents issued bills. The bills issued by the respondents are on an experimental basis. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Hence the complaint.

2. The counter filed by the respondents is as follows: The consumer No.5488/P is allotted to one Mr. Kochiparambath Krishnan for commercial purpose having 4KW connected load. The said connection was used for cable TV network by his tenant named Mr. Nithyanandan, S/o. Nadupurakkal Sankaran, Perinjanam. The monthly charges paid were Rs.1160/- as per the provisional invoice card. When reading was taken as per tariff revision it was found that the consumer is liable to pay Rs.67,670/-. So after deducting Rs.12,740/- which was paid earlier, the demand notice was given for an amount of Rs.54,930/-.


The bills are issued legally and the complainant’s meter is not having any defect. Even a small scale cable TV net work operators are using more than thousand units of electricity. The instalment payment was allowed as per the demand of the complainant as the reading was not taken within 6 months. The power supply was disconnected on 9.3.2001. The meter was not removed as the complainant did not put application for that and also there was instalment payment for an amount of Rs.7080/- on 23.11.2002.


The complainant is liable to pay a fixed amount per month, as the meter is not removed. On 4/2003 the meter was removed. The complainant paid only Rs.49,870/- out of Rs.1,16,314/- and has a balance amount of Rs.66,444/- to pay. The respondents demanded legal amount. The tenant did not pay the electric charges and made the arrears. The respondents are going to take R.R. proceedings to get the arrears. The respondents are ready to give the statement which was demanded by the complainant. Hence dismiss.

3. The points for consideration are:

(1) Is there any deficiency in service?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.

4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and Exts. R1 to R6.

5. Points-1 & 2: The case is filed to get cancellation of the disputed bills. The complainant seeks to cancel a bill issued by the respondents for Rs.54,917/-. He has paid Rs.49,885/- towards the electricity charges under protest. The complainant produced copy of lawyer notices and is marked as Exts. P1 and P2. He did not even produce the copy of disputed bill. The respondents produced copy of documents and are marked as Exts. R1 to R6. According to the respondents after renewal of Tariff cut off reading was taken and was found that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.67,670/-. So according to them after deducting the amount paid as per the invoice demand notice was issued for Rs.54,930/-.


But the date of cut off reading is not stated anywhere. Exts. R5 and R6 are the requests made by the complainant to the Board. In both these applications it is stated that complaints were put before the Apex Office of the first respondent. So the bill issued by the respondents is not admitted by him and challenged in limine. He paid some amount only to maintain the connection. Ext. R3 is the copy of calculation statement of arrears up to 4/03. The balance amount to be remitted shown as Rs.66,331/- as on 4/03.


The remitted amount is deducted. The surcharge shown as Rs.40,712/-. In the counter the respondents stated that after taking cut off reading it was found that the complainant had to pay Rs.67,670/-. The date of reading not specified. The surcharge, which is imposing for belated payment, is not liable to pay by the complainant. The belated payment was only due to the default on the part of the respondents. The consumer is not liable for this type of acts of the respondents.

6. In the complaint the reliefs sought are cancellation of bills and production of statement showing the entire accounts. He also states return of paid amount. The bills which are to be cancelled do not produced. The statement which is needed by the complainant to peruse is to be produced by application before the Forum. From the records submitted by the respondents it is seen that the amounts seen to be remitted is liable to be paid by the complainant.


But we are inclined to exonerate the liability of the complainant in payment of surcharge. The balance amount as on 4/03 was Rs.66,331/-. The complainant is liable to pay only the amount after deducting surcharge with interest at the rate of 12%. Since there is no date of issuance of Ext. R3 we are ordering interest from today only.

Respected sir,

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

Yours faithfully
Eldhose varghese

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/94

Narayana Holla
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Assistant Engineer

Sub Engineer

Assistant Executive Engineer
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K.T.Sidhiq
2. P.P.Shymaladevi
3. P.Ramadevi


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Narayana Holla


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Assistant Engineer
2. Sub Engineer
3. Assistant Executive Engineer
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

ORDER

Date of filing: 20-03-2009

Date of order:07-12-2009

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC. No. 94/09

Dated this, the 7th day of December 2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER



M/s. K.N.H. Hospital,

Rep.by its Managing Partner,

Dr.K.P. Holla, Railway Station Road, } Complainant

Uppala.Po, Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv. K.M.Ballakuraya, Kasaragod)

1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section,

K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

2. Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, } Opposite parties

K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

3. Asst.Executive Engineer,

K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

(Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)

O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT



This complaint depicts one of the grossest deficient nature of service rendered by Kerala State Electricity Board to it’s consumer.

Facts of the complaint.

The complainant obtained electric connection to the X-ray unit of the hospital in the year 1973. The approved connected load to the said unit was 5000 Watts (5 Kilowatts). Till January 2007 the opposite parties used to collect Rs.550/- towards the fixed charges in every bill. But in bill dated 6-2-07 the complainant was demanded to pay Rs.5940/- towards fixed charge alone. Though the complainant approached opposite parties and told them that they are not liable to remit the said amount, but they were asked to pay the bill to avoid disconnection. Thereafter in the bills issued during the subsequent bi-months also complainant was asked to pay the fixed charges on a higher rate that was not actually due. According to the complainant, the bills were issued under a wrong impression that the connected load of the X-ray unit is 17000 watts. The complainant has not received any order from any officer of the Board assessing the connected load or informing that the connected load is in excess of the approved connected load. The demand of fixed charges calculating the connected load at 17000 watts is illegal and improper. The objections raised against the issue of bills were went on vain. The acts of the opposite parties have caused mental agony and pain to the complainant. Hence the complaint for appropriate reliefs.

II. Version of opposite parties

2. That approved connected load to the premises of the consumer was 5 Kilowatts. But the complainant was abstracting power more than the connected load provided. On inspection, the Board had detected unauthorized additional load of 12 Kilowatt more than the sanctioned load. The consumer was directed to regularize the additional load. The complainant has neither regularized the unauthorized connected load nor removed the same till date. The complainant paid the fixed charges for the unauthorized load without protest. No complaints or objections were filed by the complainant stating that there is no additional load. The payment of bills from January 2007 onwards is an admission that there is additional load. The bills were raised as per rules. Hence opposite parties are not liable to refund the fixed charges collected from the complainant. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

3. III. Evidence

The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts A1 to A12. On the side of opposite parties no evidence is adduced and no documents also produced

4. IV. The points considered

1. Whether the complainant had connected additional unauthorized load to his X-ray unit so as to attract penal liability as contended by opposite parties?

2. Is there any deficiency -in-service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

For the sake of brevity all the points are considered together

5. No evidence is adduced by opposite parties to substantiate the contention that the complainant had connected unauthorized additional load of 12 KW to the X-ray unit attached to the hospital. It is the case of opposite parties that on inspection at the premises of the complainant’s firm they had detected unauthorized additional load of 12 KW. But to prove this allegation as per the procedure they should have prepared a site mahazar that contains the descriptions of the equipments alleged to be connected as additional load. But no site mahazar is prepared and produced to prove this aspect. Moreover, the bi-monthly consumption itself shows that the X-ray unit is using very little power say 1 or 2 units bi-monthly. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have a case that the meter is not working properly. Had it been so if the consumer was using unauthorized additional load of 12 KW then it should have reflected in the consumption pattern and meter readings. Therefore it is clear that the allegations raised by the opposite parties regarding the surplus unauthorized load is a created story to justify their deficient service. The fact that the complainant paid all the bills is not an admission of installation of unauthorized load. A consumer who fearing disconnection of electric connection will definitely pay the bills even though he feels aggrieved in the figure shown in the bill. The unjustifiable demand of fixed charge considerably at a rate of 5 times higher than that of the actual dues would certainly cause hardships to every consumer. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.

6. It is seen that from 2/07 onwards including the bill dated 15-01-09 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.33,110/- towards the fixed charges alone as against the actual dues of Rs.6,600/- if the fixed charge is reckoned as Rs.550/- per month. Moreover, the complainant would have paid the subsequent bills also at such increased rate. Definitely he is entitled to get the refund of the said amounts also.

In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.26,510/- the amount they illegally extracted from the complainant with interest @12% per annum from the date of complaint till payment along with the excess amount collected after the bill dated 15-01-09 with interest @ 12% from the date of collection till payment. The future bills of the complainant shall be revised assessing the actual connected load. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3500/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy order.