DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this 11th day of April, 2023.
Filed on: 25/06/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO. 250/2019
Between
COMPLAINANT
P.T. Wilson, "Love Dale", Puliyezhath House, Ochanthuruth P.O., Kochi - 682508, Ernakulam District.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., represented by its Secretary, Vydyuthi Bhavanain, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 004.
2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, KSEB Ltd., Mattancherry, Thoppumpady, Kochi 682 005.
3. The Chief Engineer (Dist.) Central, KSEB Ltd., Foreshore Road, Ernakulam -682 016.
(Rep. by Adv. Jaison Joseph, 1st Floor, Koorandeep Building, Providence Road Jn., Kacheripady, Kochi 682018)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the Complainant is a Senior Citizen who remitted an amount of Rs. 12,636/- with the Opposite Parties on 19-07- 2007 as per Receipt No.55651907070074 when the Complainant was liable to pay only Rs.730/- The Dy. Chief Engineer KSEB Ltd., Ernakulam rejected the appeal of the complainant. The Complainant finally approached the State Electricity Ombudsman. The State Electricity Ombudsman in the Complainant's Appeal No.7/2008 passed an Order on 25-04-2008 directing the Opposite Parties to revise the initial reading in the Meter and issue a revised Bill on the basis of Clause 33 (2) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. The Opposite Parties instead of revising the Bill as directed by the Ombudsman challenged the Order before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam by filing W.P. (C) No.8303/2009. The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala heard the said W.P.(C) No.8303/2009 on 23-05-2018 and dismissed the same by Judgment dated 23-05-2018. After the dismissal of the W.P. (C) No.8303/2009, the Complainant bonafide believed that the Opposite parties herein would refund the amount with interest the excess amount collected from the Complainant within the time. But the Opposite Parties Did not refund the amount even after a lapse of 3 months from the date of Judgment. Under such circumstances, the Complainant wrote a letter dated 04-07-2018 to the Opposite Parties. The opposite parties have not even cared to sent a reply to the letter sent by the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have forwarded a Cheque for Rs.11,741/- without mentioning anything about the claim of Interest which is legally due to the complainant as per the provisions of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity 2005. After receipt of the Cheque for Rs.11,741/- the Complainant wrote a letter to the 1st Opposite party with a copy to the other opposite parties asking them for the balance amount due ie., 34,692/- as on 04-07-2018. The Complainant is entitled to get interest from 04-07-2018 to the date of realization at the rate of interest claimed earlier. Now the 1 opposite party has sent a reply to this complainant, letter No LC11/4699/2018 dated 24-05-2019, A perusal of the said letter dated 24-05- 2019 clearly shows that the stand taken by the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited with regard to the payment of Interest is clearly illegal and unsustainable in view of the fact that the Opposite Parties charge such rate of interest from their customers when amounts are due to them. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to take a different stand when the payment of interest is to be made by them to the customers. The Opposite Parties as the provider of supply of electricity are bound to refund the excess amount collected from the consumer like the complainant immediately on the passing of the Order by the State Electricity Ombudsman on 25-04-2008. The Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service when they failed to refund the excess amount remitted by the complainant as early as 19-07-2007. The Opposite Parties with the intention to delay and deny the refund approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.(C) No.8303/2009. The principle that the amount carries interest is ignored by the Opposite Parties when they issued Annexure-A6 dated 24-05-2019. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to Set aside a letter dated 24-05-2019 of the 1st Opposite Party and direct Opposite Parties to pay the Interest claimed Rs.34,692/- as of 04-07-2018, to allow interest from 04-07-2018 at the rate specified in Clause 37 (6) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity 2005, i.e., 11,741/24 till payment is made, to award compensation for mental pain and agony sustained by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, and the cost of the litigation.
2. Notices
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had produced proof affidavit and 6 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-6.
Exhibit A-1. True Copy of Receipt No.556551907070074 dt.19-07-2007.
Exhibit A-2-True Copy of Order of KSEB Ombudsman dt.25-04-2008
Exhibit A-3-True Copy of Judgment dt.23-05-2018
Exhibit A-4-True Copy of Letter by Complainant dt. 04- 07-2018
Exhibit A-5-True Copy of Letter by Complainant dt. 11-03-2019.
Exhibit A-6-True copy of Reply Letter dt.24-05-2019 from Secretary KSEB.
4) 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 parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a Copy of Receipt No.556551907070074 dt.19-07-2007 issued by the opposite parties (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the service to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite parties in connection with the refusal of the claim of interest by the Opposite Parties.
The complainant submitted that the decision of KSEB Ltd. is highly arbitrary and without any legal basis and as such the same is liable to be interfered with by the commission. The non-grant of interest due to the complainant amounts to a deficiency of service by the Officers of the 1st opposite party. When amounts are due to the opposite parties from any consumer of electricity, and if the delay is made for remitting the same, the opposite parties charge amounts under various heads like disconnection charges, re-connection charges, fine, and interest as provided, and the provisions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity 2005. It is common knowledge that an amount decreases in value after years. The excess amount was forced to be remitted by the complainant in July 2007 on the threat of disconnection and the opposite parties were using that amount for their purposes all these 12 years and they were making illegal profit out of that amount. The provisions of Clause 37 (6) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply Electricity 2005 are applicable in this case and the complainant and he is entitled to get the interest as provided in the said provision. The Claim cannot be accepted because of the review by the Dy. Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Ernakulam, confirmed the assessment and the delay in finalization of the case will not cover under Regulation 37 (6) of the terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity 2005" which is clearly arbitrary and unsustainable. It is clearly unsustainable to say the Officers of the KSEB Ltd. have unlimited power to take the decision in a matter like this, where the amount has to be refunded to the consumer. Here the delay caused by the officers of KSEB Limited is malaise and they have to be made liable for making such delay and causing a loss of amount by way of interest to KSEB Limited. The complainant could not be made to suffer the loss caused by the inaction on the part of the Officers of the 1st Opposite Party. The Officers of KSEB Limited are under an obligation to explain how the provision of Clause 37 (6) is not applicable. On 26-02-2019, the Second Opposite party paid forwarded a Cheque for Rs. 11,741/ without mentioning the complainant’s claim of interest which is legally due to him as per the provisions of Terms & Conditions of Supply of Electricity, 2005.
The provisions of Clause 37 (2) and (6) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply Electricity 2005 are applicable in this case. As per Clause 37 (2) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005:
“On a complaint by any consumer regarding the correctness of a bill, the Board will immediately carry out a review. The Board will issue a revised bill appropriately adjust the bill amount if the review establishes that the bill is incorrect. It was found that the consumer was overcharged, the excess amount shall be repaid within two months with interest at twice the bank rate. “
Clause 37 (6) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005:
“If it is established that after payment of the bill, the Board has overcharged the consumer, the excess amount shall be paid within two months with interest at twice the Bank rate.”
The complainant further submitted that the receipt of the Cheque for Rs.11,741/-, he wrote a letter dated 11.03.2019 to the 1st Opposite Party with a copy to the other Opposite Parties, asking the balance amount due i.e., Rs.34,692/-as on 04/07/2018 and the Complainant is entitled to get the interest from 04/07/2018 to the date of realization of the interest claimed earlier. The 1st Opposite party has sent a reply letter dated 24/05/2019 to this complaint, clearly showing that the stand taken by the KSEB with regard to the payment of interest is clearly illegal and sustainable.
We have also noticed that a notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version.
The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 6 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-6. All in support of his case. But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to file a version.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite parties have inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the Opposite Parties in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above the prayer in this complaint is allowed as follows:
i. The opposite parties shall pay an amount of Rs.11,741/24 (Rupees eleven thousand seven hundred forty one Paise twenty four only) the complainant along with 9% interest from 04/07/2018 till the date of realization.
ii. The opposite parties shall pay the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation, which shall also attract interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
- The opposite parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and(ii) above also shall attract interest @9 % from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 11th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1. True Copy of Receipt No.556551907070074 dt.19-07-2007.
Exhibit A-2-True Copy of Order of KSEB Ombudsman dt.25-04-2008
Exhibit A-3-True Copy of Judgment dt.23-05-2018
Exhibit A-4-True Copy of Letter by Complainant dt. 04- 07-2018
Exhibit A-5-True Copy of Letter by Complainant dt. 11-03-2019.
Exhibit A-6-True copy of Reply Letter dt.24-05-2019 from Secretary KSEB.
OPPOSITE PARTIEES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 250/2019
Order Date: 11/04/2023
