The Masjidul Jalaliya Pally Committee, Kottakunnu, Rep. by its Secretary, C K Saithalavy Haji, Chenakkattil House, Meenangadi Post,Wayanad.
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K S E B, Meenangady,
The Secretary, K S E B, Thiruvananthapuram.
1. K GHEEVARGHESE
2. P Raveendran
3. SAJI MATHEW
By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer of electricity vide the consumer No.2536 in the electrical section, Meenangady. The Complainant herein is the former President of Mahallu of the Masjudul Jalaliya Pally Committee at Kottakunnu. The Mosque was already constructed with 1st and 2nd floor, to reach the 2nd floor there is one stair case and iron pipe works were arranged fencing the stair case. The hand work construction was done in use of electricity and the work was only a matter of 4 hours. When hand Rail work was going on the 1st Opposite Party made surprise inspection and mahazar was prepared. The penal bill of Rs.4,500/- was issued to the Complainant assessing the use of 3 KW of energy for 15 days and two times of penal charges calculated for the same. The maximum period used for cutting the hand rail amount to only 3 or 4 hours. The penal bill issued to the complainant is without any reason and under no bonafied circumstances. The act of the 1st Opposite Party is nothing but deficiency in service and the complaint is to be compensated . There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to cancel the additional bill dated 08.07.2009 absolving liability of the complainant as demanded by the bill issued. The Opposite Party may be directed to give the Complainant Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost.
2. The Opposite Parties filed version. According to them the Complainant is a consumer with No.2536 within the limit of the 1st Opposite Party. On surprise inspection of the premises 2 KVA welding set and a 1200 W cutting machine were found to be connected temporarily to the above supply. The act of the Complainant is nothing but unauthorized use of energy no prior sanction and no formalities required were complied by the Complainant. In the roof of the mosque the truss works were done. On finding the unauthorized use of energy a penal bill was given. The temporary connection was taken for 15 days and the charge was levied for 15 days alone and the penalization of the amount was two times. There is no illegality on the demand of the amount as the penal charges by the Opposite Party for the unauthorized use of electricity of the Complainant.
3. The points in consideration are:-
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Relief and cost.
4. The Points No.1 and 2 :- The Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext.A1 is the document produced for the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not tendered any oral evidence. Ext.B1 is the document marked for the Opposite Party. The Complainant is examined as PW1 and has given oral testimony in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the hand rail works with iron pipes were done in the mosque for which electricity was used. The work was carried out only for a period of 3 to 4 hours and the energy was used for that purpose from the supply received. Ext.A1 is the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 08.07.2009. The amount charged as the penalization considering the consumption energy of 3 KW Rs. 50 per KW for a period of 15 days. The amount was twiced. It is admitted by the Complainant that the supply in the consumer number was used for truss work, but the dispute is with respect to levying of this charge for an extend of 15 days. The penalization was accrued in two times for the amount charged for a period of 15 days. We are in the opinion that the penalized bill amount is to be reduced. The demand cum disconnection notice in the consumer No.2536 dated 08.07.2009 is quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue the Complainant afresh bill for a period of 10 days of 3 KW with Rs.50 per KW and instead of two times, the amount to be assessed 1 ˝ times of the chargeable amount.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to give the Complainant a fresh bill of 3 KW with Rs. 50 per KW for a period of 10 days in 1 ˝ times. The demand cum disconnection dated 08.07.2009 of No.333341 stands quashed. The Opposite Party is directed to give the fresh bill as directed to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order. On receipt of the fresh bill issued, the Complainant has to remit the amount within 7 days. No order as to cost and compensation.
By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of electricity supplied by the respondents vide consumer No.3046/OYR. The respondents issued a notice dated 7/12/06 demanding Rs.2900/- as additional cash deposit. The notice is illegal as it is not having any basis. The respondents through the notice informed that they will disconnect the supply if the amount is not paid. The respondents have no right to demand such an amount and to disconnect the supply. Hence the complaint.
2. Counter of respondents is that:
The bill dated 7/12/06 was issued to the complainant requesting to pay additional security amount of Rs.2900/- as per existing law. This is according to Section 47 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 15 of the Terms and conditions of Supply Act, 2005. The complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with an intention to evade the payment. The complaint is not maintainable. The Board has every right to collect 3 months electricity charge as security deposit as per above provisions. Hence dismiss the complaint.
3. The points for consideration are:
1) Is there any deficiency in service ?
2) If so relief and cost?
4. The complainant has produced one document and it is marked as Exhibit P1 and submitted no oral evidence. The respondents produced one document and is marked as Exhibit R1 and submitted no oral evidence.
5. Points: The complainant filed this complaint to cancel the notice issued by the respondents. The complainant is a consumer of the respondents having consumer No.3046/OYR. The dispute arises when he obtained a notice dated 7/12/06 issued by the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2900/- as Additional Security Deposit. The complainant challenges this notice as illegal. In the counter the respondents have specifically mentioned that there is no illegality in the notice issued. According to Section 47 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 15 of the Terms and conditions of Supply Act, 2005 the Board has every right to collect 3 months electricity charge as security deposit. So as per the above provisions the respondents demanded Rs.2900/- as Additional cash deposit. Exhibit P1 shows that the demand notice issued was dated 7/12/2006 and the amount to be paid before 10/1/07. So the complainant had given one-month duration to remit the amount. So we cannot say any deficiency in the service of the respondents.
8. In the result the complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to remit the amount of Rs.2,900/- (Rupees Two thousand and nine hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
This complaint filed by the complainant for change the electric connection, compensation and cost
The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:
The complainant had availed an electric connection bearing Consumer No.13651 from the opp.party for agricultural purpose The agricultural department was punctually depositing the complainant’s bill amount in KSEB. The electricity tariff was fixed LT V Agriculture tariff. The complainant got a bill bearing No.152 dated 6.10.2004 the complainant approached the opp.party and enquired about it. The opp.party replied that the complainant’s connection tariff is changed and included in LT VII A, because a residential building is constructing in the above property. The A drop of water from LT V connection was not used for the construction purposes. The Asst. Engineer was reluctant to accept the application of the complainant for restoration of LT V connection. On 29.1.2004 the complainant remitted Rs.995/- which is the bill amount and interest vide receipt No.282 and filed an application before the opp.party to restore the old tariff informed the complainant that the application was forwarded to the Executive Engineer. The complainant enquired the Executive Engineers’ office and obtained an information that so such application was reached there. The complainant again met the opp.party but he has no satisfactory reply about the application. On 22.12.2004 again the complainant filed another application . At that time he asked to deposit Rs.35/- towards C.F. charge and the complainant remitted it vide bill No.4364. Then the Sub Engineer inspected the plot and filed a report recommending the restoration of LT V connection. Several times the complainant approached the Asst. Engineer and Executive Engineer for necessary action. But no action was taken on the application. After several months the complainant received a disconnection notice dt. 7.7.05. On 21.7.2005 the complainant submitted a complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer sent the said complaint to the Asst. Engineer for his report and action. But this time the Asst. Engineer was not taken action. Thereafter one day the opp.party trespassed in to the complainant’s property forcibly opened the pump house and took the meter with out the knowledge and notice of the complainant and his family members. Then they according to their convenience a meter reading and sent it for RR proceedings on 12.4.2006 Executive Engineer sent a notice calling upon the complainant to remit a sum of Rs.3405/- before 28.4.06. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief.
The opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The consumer bearing No.13651 was an agriculture connection under LT V tariff in the name of Smt.B. Krishnakumari, Ramachandravilasam Kurumandal, Paravoor and was effect in 1999. The consumer was billed till 12/2003 under LT V tariff and has an arrear of Rs.333/- till that date. During 2/2004 it was noticed that the consumer misused the service connection given on purely for agriculture purpose, she was using it for construction purpose and hence the tariff was changed to LT VII A and was bill accordingly including fixed charge Rs.100/- The complainant remitted the bill dt. 6.10.2004 for Rs.947/- o 29.10.2004 vide Rt.No.282 including RF and SC –Rs.996/-] The complainant applied for tariff changing from VII A to LTV by remitting Rs.35/- vide Rt.No.111/4364 dt. 22.12.2004. The application for tariff changing was forwarded by Asst. Engineer, Paravoor to the Executive Engineer, Electrical Divisi9on, Chathannoor. The executive Engineer, Chathannoor has returned the application vide Lr.No.DB/tariff change/505/17.2.2005 to the Asst. Engineer, Paravoor for rectification as per Lr.No.PGRC/TVM/8/ASC/04-05/7122/21.12.2004 of Member Distribution and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant has not responded to regularize the irregularities and became a defaulter for more than six months on 1/2006 and dismantling notice dt. 28.12006 was served to the complainant Since the due3s had not been cleared the meter was dismantled on 28.2.02 and Revenue Recover Action initiated o The complaint was forwarded to Executive Engineer, Chathannor on 26.6.2006 in order to initiate Revenue Recovery Action with recoverable amount Rs.3405/- and RR action initiated vide RRC No.603/06/07. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable ?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party?
3. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 to PW.3 are examined. Ext. P1 series is marked.
For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.
In this case before entering into the merit of the case, the first point to be decided is whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. Both parties admits that before filing this complaint the opp.party sent the matter for RR proceedings. The Forum has no jurisdiction to interfere with RR proceedings which have commenced. The complaint would have been filed before initiating RR proceedings. When RR proceedings started sovereign functions begins. The Consumer For a have no jurisdiction to interfere in the sovereign functions. Hence we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.
Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) vakathanam branch(njaliakuzhy) is over charging me with additional duty... surcharge... and they are double counting the actual usage bill.... and looting us ....i went to them and they still argueing with their own conclusions... please help... i have 3 phase connection and units consumed for 2 months is 1304 units..... and they charged me with a whopping 14245 rupees!!!!!! They have been doing the same for the past 3 times!!! please help