DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 24th day of May 2024
Filed on: 24/03/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No.184/2022
COMPLAINANT
Nishad Sobhanan, Pulingyanpilly (H),Puthenvelikkara P.O., Malavana 683594
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Chalakudy 680307
- The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Puthenvelikkara P.O., 683594.
- The Chairman KSEB Ltd, Vydyuthibhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695004
(OP No. 1 to 3 Rep. by Adv. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel, KSEB)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, by Nishad Sobhanan on behalf of K.S.E.B. consumer Smt. Omana P.K. (1156593016444). The complaint references an order issued by the K.S.E.B, which mandates that electricity should be provided free of charge if the monthly usage is up to 30 units, without any poverty line criteria or other conditions.
Despite applying to the KSEB Office. Puthanvelikara on February 3, 2021, and to the Chief Minister's Grievance Redressal Mechanism on January 29, 2022, KSEB failed to provide the free electricity benefits as per the order. Instead, they cited unnecessary reasons for not complying. The complaint requests that strong action be taken against the opposite parties for this deliberate non-compliance. It also mentions that since the issuance of the circular, money deposited has been returned with interest, complaints have been filed, cases have been initiated, and a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid. The complainant requests suitable measures to be taken.
2) Notice
The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties, who subsequently appeared and submitted their versions.
3) THE VERSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
The first opposite party filed this version on behalf of themselves and the second and third opposite parties, stating that the complaint is experimental, intended to create difficulties, and lacks bona fide intent, thus should be dismissed. The Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEB), a government company, must be represented by its secretary, but the complaint lacks this necessary party.
The consumer number 115659301644 is registered to Smt. Omana P.K., not the complainant Nishad Sobhanan, which contravenes the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The exemption from electricity charges applies only to economically backward consumers, as per the order dated September 4, 2012, and supported by a government order from 1991. Smt. Omana did not produce proof of being economically backward.
The exemption is for consumers with an average monthly consumption of up to 20/30 units and a connected load of up to 500 watts. The electric connection was made on October 27, 2012, and showed nil consumption from January to September 2022, indicating non-residence. Smt. Omana admitted that the house in question was uninhabitable and partially collapsed due to the 2018 flood, making the exemption inapplicable. The opposite parties stated there is no deficiency in service and the complaint, which omits these facts, should be dismissed with costs to the opposite parties.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and six documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-6.
Exhibit A1: Copy of the RTI Application filed by the complainant.
Exhibit A2: Copy of the RTI Reply
Exhibit A3: Copy of the Application to the office of the K.S.E.B, Puthanvelikara.
Exhibit A4: Copy of the Reply to the Application given by the office of the K.S.E.B, Puthanvelikara
Exhibit A5: Copy of the B.P.L. Ration Card of the complainant.
Exhibit A6: Copy of the B.P.L. Certificate submitted by the complainant along with the application.
The opposite parties had filed 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-B-1 to B-5.
Exhibit B1: Copy of reading register from 01/2022 to 09/2022
Exhibit B2: Copy of Board order dated BO (FM no. 1633/2012 (KSEB/TRAC/Tariff Rev-2012-13) dated 04.09.2012
Exhibit B3: B.O. (FTD) No 854/2021 - (KSEB/TRAC-D/Covid Pandemic-Tariff concession/2021-22/) dated 16/11/2022.
Exhibit B4: Copy of the letter dated 02.02.2021 submitted by the registered owner Smt. Omana P.K., admitting that the house for which she was praying for exemption of current charges is uninhabitable and was in a partially collapsed condition due to the flood in 2018.
Exhibit B5: Copy of the letter dated 26.02.2022 by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Chalakudy, addressed to Sri. Nishad Shobhanan
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Copy of reading register from 01/2022 to 09/2022 produced by the opposite parties (Exhibit B1). The Act explicitly includes beneficiaries in the definition of a consumer, meaning that even if a person did not directly purchase a product or service, they are considered a consumer if they are using or benefiting from it with the approval of the purchaser. Electricity is considered a service under the Consumer Protection Act, so anyone who avails of or benefits from electricity services, with the consent of the registered consumer, is recognized as a consumer. Hence, the complainants are consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
In the present case in hand, this complaint, filed by Nishad Sobhanan on behalf of K.S.E.B. consumer Smt. Omana P.K. references an order dated November 6, 2021, mandating free electricity for monthly usage up to 30 units without any BPL criteria. Despite applying to KSEB on February 3, 2021, and to the Chief Minister's Grievance Redressal Mechanism on January 29, 2022, KSEB failed to provide the free electricity benefits as per the order, citing unnecessary reasons for non-compliance. The complaint asserts that the opposite parties' refusal to comply is deliberate, causing distress and financial loss to the complainant, and requests a refund with interest and compensation.
The complainant submitted that the responses provided by the opposite parties to his complaint were entirely unacceptable. It is evident from the Right to Information (RTI) reply the complainant received from the Electricity Division/Head Office in Thiruvananthapuram that the issues raised in his complaint are valid. The RTI response clearly states that if the monthly usage is below 30 units, the consumer is eligible for benefits without considering the B.P.L. criteria. The investigation report provided by the opposite parties, which contradicts this RTI response, is biased and prepared with the preconceived notion that benefits should not be given for usage below 30 units. This is evident upon examining the fourth response.
Since the electricity bill is issued every two months, a consumer who does not use up to 60 units (30+30) should receive benefits from KSEB without any request. The deliberate attempts to deny these benefits to the applicants are distressing. The complainant had clearly inquired in his RTI application whether there were any other criteria to receive this benefit. The opposite parties' efforts to list unmentioned criteria in the response to create difficulties are intentional and malicious. Strong actions may be taken against the opposite parties for this intentional harassment, and the total bill amount collected so far should be refunded with interest. Additionally, measures should be taken to ensure that the complainant receives a compensation of five lakh rupees.
An order dated November 16, 2021, issued by the K.S.E.B. (Exhibit B3), mandates that electricity should be provided free of charge if the monthly usage is up to 30 units, without any poverty line criteria or other conditions, as detailed below:
“i) free electricity now being given to domestic consumers w.e.f. 29.09.1997, having their average monthly consumption up to 20 units with connected load upto 500 watts, with subsidy provided by the State Govt., shall be extended to 30 units without any change in connected load.”
“6. to authorise Financial Advisor to account the subsidy now being given to non-payment group of consumers, Consumers to whom free electricity to be provided on account of enhanced consumption limit and BPL consumers to provided with reduced rate of electricity of Rs.1.50/unit in the consumption slab of 41 to 50 units/month separately, for providing details to the Govemment for reimbursing the same in time.”
We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence.
- Maintainability of the Complaint:
The opposite parties' argument that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Act is unfounded. The Act includes beneficiaries, making the complainant a legitimate consumer.
In Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) SCC (3) 583, the Hon arable Supreme Court held that:
“For instance, it is not only purchaser of goods or hirer of services but even those who use the goods or who are beneficiaries of services with approval of the person who purchased the goods or who hired services arc included in it. The legislature has taken precaution not only to define 'complaint', 'complainant', 'consumer' but even to mention in detail what would amount to unfair trade practice by giving an elaborate definition in clause (r) and even to define 'defect' and 'deficiency' by clauses (f) and (g) for which a consumer can approach the Commission.”
The Act explicitly includes beneficiaries within the definition of a consumer. Consequently, even if an individual did not directly purchase a product or service, they are deemed a consumer if they use or benefit from it with the purchaser's approval. Electricity is classified as a service under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, any person who avails of or benefits from electricity services, with the consent of the registered consumer, is recognized as a consumer. Accordingly, the complainants are consumers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
B. Deficiency in Service and Negligence: The opposite parties failed to comply with the order dated November 16, 2021, which mandates free electricity for monthly usage of up to 30 units without any BPL criteria or other conditions. This non-compliance constitutes a deficiency in service and negligence. The RTI response received by the complainant clearly states that if the monthly usage is below 30 units, the consumer is eligible for benefits without considering the B.P.L. criteria. The investigation report provided by the opposite parties, which contradicts this RTI response, is biased and prepared with the preconceived notion that benefits should not be given for usage below 30 units.
C. Liability of the Opposite Parties
The opposite parties failed to comply with the mandated order to provide free electricity for usage below 30 units. Their actions constitute a deficiency in service and negligence, causing unnecessary distress to the complainant.
The order dated November 16, 2021, issued by the K.S.E.B. (Exhibit B3) mandates that electricity should be provided free of charge if the monthly usage is up to 30 units, without any poverty line criteria or other conditions, as extracted below: “i) Free electricity now being given to domestic consumers w.e.f. 29.09.1997, having their average monthly consumption up to 20 units with connected load up to 500 watts, with subsidy provided by the State Govt., shall be extended to 30 units without any change in connected load.”
In the landmark judgment of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K. Gupta, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India elaborated on the scope of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, emphasizing the protection of consumer rights against such deficiencies and practices. Drawing from this precedent, it is clear that the opposite parties' failure to act as per the contractual obligations and statutory duties constitutes a deficiency in service.
The opposite parties acknowledged in their submissions in the version that the registered owner of consumer No.115659301644, as noted in complaint CC 184/2022, has admitted in her application to the Electrical Section, Puthanvelikkara, dated December 2, 2021, that the house for which the exemption from current charges was sought is uninhabitable and was in a partially collapsed condition due to the flood of 2018.
This acknowledgement raises concerns about the empathy and responsibility expected from statutory authority, particularly in addressing the needs of victims of natural disasters. It is also noted that the family affected is economically disadvantaged, holding a Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate, which underscores the necessity for such authorities to act with heightened sensitivity and support towards vulnerable consumers.
The opposite parties have engaged in a systematic effort to deny rightful benefits to eligible consumers, under the guise of non-existent criteria, thereby misleading and causing undue distress to the complainant. Such actions are detrimental to the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which aims to safeguard consumer interests and ensure fair trade practices.
We determine that issue numbers (i) to (iv) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite parties shall refund the total bill amount collected from the complainant.
- The opposite parties shall pay ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for unfair trade practices and the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and his family.
- The opposite parties shall ensure compliance with the order dated November 16, 2021, to provide free electricity if the monthly usage is up to 30 units.
- The opposite parties shall also pay ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Should there be a failure to comply within the stipulated period, the amounts detailed in Points I and II will accrue interest at an annual rate of 9% starting from the expiration of the 45-day period, from the date of filing of the case (24.03.2022) till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the24th day of May 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A1: Copy of the RTI Application filed by the complainant.
Exhibit A2: Copy of RTI Reply
Exhibit A3: Copy of the Application to the office of the K.S.E.B, Puthanvelikara.
Exhibit A4: Copy of the Reply to the Application given by the office of the K.S.E.B, Puthanvelikara
Exhibit A5: Copy of the B.P.L. Ration Card of the complainant.
Exhibit A6: Copy of the B.P.L. Certificate submitted by the complainant along with application
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Exhibit B1: Copy of reading register from 01/2022 to 09/2022
Exhibit B2: Copy of Board order dated BO (FM no. 1633/2012 (KSEB/TRAC/Tariff Rev-2012-13) dated 04.09.2012
Exhibit B3: B.O. (FTD) No 854/2021 - (KSEB/TRAC-D/Covid Pandemic-Tariff concession/2021-22/) dated 16/11/2022
Exhibit B4: Copy of the letter dated 02.02.2021 submitted by the registered owner Smt. Omana P.K., admitting that the house for which she was praying for exemption of current charges is uninhabitable and was in a partially collapsed condition due to the flood in 2018
Exhibit B5: Copy of the letter dated 26.02.2022 by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Chalakudy, addressed to Sri. Nishad Shobhanan
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 184/2022
Order Date:24/05/2024
