BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 7th day of March 2024.
PRESENT:
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N Member
C.C. No.148/2020
Complainant
- Saseendran, Vadathala House, House No.31/488, Vaduthala P.O.,
Pin-682 023 - Chandralekha, Preetha Nivas, Vaduthal, Cochin-23
(By Adv.Sreeraj K.S., 40/1157, ‘Prabhat’, T.D.Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682 011)
Vs.
Opposite party
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Vaduthal, Cochin-23, Pin-682 023
(By Adv.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel KSEB)
O R D E R
V.Ramachandran, Member
This consumer complaint is filed by Saseendran Vadathal House, Vaduthala which was subsequently, transferred into the name of Chandralekha.
The gist of the complaint is that the opposite party had provided electric connection to the complainant and had charged exorbitant rate from the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party was giving electricity bill to the complainant marking LT 6 FgnL construction work. Infact, the complainant states that they were not doing any construction works at the house and electricity was used only for domestic purposes. It is stated by the complainant that tariff rate of the connection was unilaterally converted into LT 7A by the opposite party due to detection of usage of electrify for constructing purposes on 26.05.2020 by the opposite party. Accordingly, the tariff was changed into the above category on 08.07.2019. Infact, no inspections was conducted by anybody during May 2010 in the above house. Nothing has been mentioned by the opposite party regarding the nature of construction works done by the complainant in the house. Moreover, the complainant’s arguments is that if any construction work done by the complainant by using domestic electricity which is detected usually huge fine shall be imposed on the spot by the opposite party. The opposite party do not have the right to change the tariff as if it had been in the case of the complainant without the consent of the complainant. There is no evidence or even a notice is issued to the complainant by the opposite party.
The complainant states that the opposite party had illegally converted the rate of tariff from 08.07.2010 to 28.01.2020 and issued a bill for Rs.39,583/- for the use of electricity from 19.06.2018 to 19.12.2018 for 4090 unit of electricity. The opposite party had not inspected the premises or had taken reading, but had issued exorbitant bill which is very clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The complainant approached this Commission stating that the exorbitant amount charged by the opposite party is due to the mistake in conducting the reading by the opposite party and had prayed to the Commission to issue direction to the opposite party to cancel the bill after recalculating the average consumption for six months after installation of the meter and also to issue reliefs and compensation.
2) Notice.
Upon notice from this Commission the opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3) Version of the opposite party.
The opposite party submitted that the connection bearing No.8502 was given to Sri.Sahadevan V.N for domestic purpose under the domestic tariff. The said connection was a single phase connection and the authorized connected load at the time of effecting service connection was 350 watts. The registered consumer in this electric connection is Sri.Sahadevan V.N and on local enquiry it is learnt that Sri.Sahadevan is not alive. The complainant Saseendran is not a consumer as per the records in Electrical Section, Vaduthala. The said fact can be ascertained from the profile of the consumer with the Electrical Section. The complainant does not have any locus standi to prefer the complaint as the connection bearing No.8502 is in the name of Sahadevan V N and the complainant has not taken any steps to get the said connection transferred to his name inspite of repeated reminders from the opposite party. During inspection in May 2010 it was detected that this domestic electric connection was being used for construction purpose and hence the tariff was changed to LT 7A on 26.05.2020 after informing the consumer. Later as per the order of Kerala State Regulatory Commission dated 14.08.2014, classifying all construction purpose under LT 6F tariff, this connection was changed to LT 6F tariff. During the period from 19.06.2018 to 19.12.2018, the consumption recorded in the meter of this consumer was 4090 units. Hence a bill of Rs.39,583/- was issued to the consumer on 16.01.2019 based on the above consumption. The consumer lodged a complaint against the bill dated 16.01.2019. Hence a test meter was installed in the premises for checking the accuracy of the energy meter. The error was within prescribed limits and hence the consumer admitting the said bill, requested for instalments to remit the bill amount.
The complainant Saseendran had submitted a complaint before the Vyduthi Adalath 2020 against the bill and for the refund of the amounts already deposited. Hence the energy meter was tested in TMR, Angamaly which is a NABL accredited Laboratory. As per the test report, the error of the meter was within permissible limits. The bill issued to the consumer for Rs.39,583/- was based on the actual metered consumption and in order. The bill amount was remitted instalments. The complainant requested for a change in the tariff from LT6F to domestic tariff before the Vydhuthi Adalath 2020. The adalath directed the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vaduthala to conduct a site inspection and fix the tariff based on the inspection. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vaduthala conducted a site inspection on 29.01.2020 and it was found that the connection was being used for carrying out repairing works of sopha, equipments like wood cutter, hand drill, compressor was connected in the premises. The electricity connection was not being used for domestic purpose as alleged by the complainant. As per the existing tariff regulations, domestic consumers are allowed to utilize the electrical energy for non-domestic purposes for their own use, if the connected load for the non-domestic usage in their premise does not exceed 20% of the total connected load or 1000 watts whichever is less. In the present case, the connected load which was fond on inspection in the premise is 4401 watts and also the electrical energy was not used for any domestic purposes. Hence, based on the site inspection, the tariff of the connection was changed to industrial (LT 4A() tariff with effect from 29.01.2020. The connected load also was changed from 350 watts to 4401 watts.
It is submitted that the security deposit is collected as per Regulation 67 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. The regulation 73 of the Supply Code 2014, provides for the licensee to review the security deposit of each consumer during the first quarter of the financial year based on the consumption pattern of the consumer in the previous financial year. The consumer is required to maintain a security deposit equal to three times the average monthly bill amount in case of consumers under bimonthly billing system. Security deposit of Rs.11,073/- was collected from the consumer as the existing deposit was not sufficient as per regulations. The consumer is given interest for this security deposit and is adjusted in future electricity bills.
The opposite party has requested the complainant to make necessary applications along with the documents in support of, for the change of ownership of consumer No.8502. The complainant nor the legal heirs of the deceased owner of consumer No.8502 have made any applications with regard to the same.
4) Evidence
The complainant produced 13 documents and proof affidavit and subsequently produced 11 documents which is not seen marked. Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant is a copy of Adhar card. Exbt.A2 is a certificate. Exbt.A3 is a tax receipt. Exbt.A4 is a photographs of house, Exbt.A5 is a bill issued by the KSEB, Exbt.A6 is the reply from the opposite party. Exbt.A7 is a letter received from the opposite party regarding the meter reading. Exbt.A8 is receipt remittance. Exbt.A9 is a copy of complaint. Exbt. A10 is an application given to Assistant Electrical Engineer. ExbtA11 is the Site Mahazar, Exbt.A12 is the statement. Exbt.A13 is a copy of letter.
On going through the complaint, version and documents produced from either side, it is seen that domestic electric connection was given by the opposite party to the complainant and domestic connection was subsequently converted by the opposite party into LT 7 A. The argument of the opposite party is that the connation given to the complainant was only a single face connection which was in the name of one V. Sahadevan V.A, the consumer. After the death of Sahadevan, the complainant Saseendran preferred the complainant who does not a locus standi. Subsequently, Smt.Chandralekha was impleaded as the complainant and therefore the question of maintainability for want of locus standi has not been significant and the Commission had gone into merit of the case.
5) The following are the main points to be analysed in this case:
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
(iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) Point No. (i)
It is stated in the version that during the inspection made in the year 2010 the opposite party detected domestic electric connection being used for construction purposes and therefore changed the tariff to LT 7A on 26.05.2020 after informing the consumer. In this connection, the opposite party had not produced any documents to substantiate that an inspection was conducted by them and spot mahazar was prepared thereon. Moreover, no copy of notice issued to the complainant is produced by the opposite party before the Commission. It is mandatory to prepare spot mahazar if the above allegation of detection of usage by diversion of domestic electricity for other purposes as is stated by the authority or officer who ought to prepare a mahazar on spot and notice or copy of the mahazar is to be issued to the respondent. In the instant case it is not seen done. Since the energy meter is tested by TMR and the error is within the permissible limit as stated which has not been challenged or disproved by the complainant by any means and also on the basis of the judgment of the apex court in UP Power Corporation & others Vs.Anis Ahmad in Civil Appeal No.5466/2012 the apex court has made it clear that the unauthorized usage of electricity by diversion shall not come under the ambit of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act. As regards to excess charging the Commission cannot come into an inference that the amount so charged by the opposite party is not in par with the consumption of power from any evidence made available by the complainant. In the result, point No. (i) is found against the complainant.
7) Point Nos. (ii) and (iii)
Having found point No.(i) against the complainant, we do not have examined point Nos.(ii) and (iii).
In the result the complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on 7th day of March 2024.
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
Exbt.A1 produced by the complainant is a copy of Adhar card.
Exbt.A2 is a certificate.
Exbt.A3 is a tax receipt.
Exbt.A4 is a photographs of house,
Exbt.A5 is a bill issued by the KSEB,
Exbt.A6 is the reply from the opposite party.
Exbt.A7 is a letter received from the opposite party regarding the meter reading.
Exbt.A8 is receipt remittance.
Exbt.A9 is a copy of complaint.
Exbt. A10 is an application given to Assistant Electrical Engineer.
ExbtA11 is the Site Mahazar,
Exbt.A12 is the statement. Exbt.A13 is a copy of letter.
uk/
