BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

O.P. No. 35/2005 Filed on 25.01.2005

Dated: 30.11.2013

Complainant:

Thomson, Rose Villa, Kottathanam, Attupuram, Uchakkada P.O, Neyyattinkara.

                             (By adv. K.P. Renadive)

Opposite parties:

1. Kerala State electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Parassala.

1. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Parassala.

(By adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

1. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kulathoor, Uchakkada P.O.

                   (By adv. Sureshchandrakumar for 4^th O.P)

This O.P having been heard on 06.11.2013, the Forum on 30.11.2013 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

          The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and availed connection (electric) vide consumer No. UKA 5836 for agricultural purpose, that 40 years prior to the above said connection, complainant availed a single phase electrical connection from the opposite parties vide consumer No. UKA 388 for domestic purpose, that thereafter complainant submitted an application to convert the single phase into 3 phase along with the certificate issued by the concerned agricultural officer, that as per G.O dated 04.02.1999 issued by the government agricultural connection estimate was fixed at Rs. 20,000/- and connection availed for agricultural purpose is excluded from minimum guarantee conditions, that on the basis of the application for conversion from single phase to 3 phase the 2^nd opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer visited the spot and found that complainant is entitled to get conversion and accordingly complainant deposited Rs. 300/- in consumer No. 5836, that opposite party agreed to draw line through the line drawn for single phase and provided connection on 18.03.2000 and disconnected the domestic connection for which complainant remitted Rs. 217/- and on the basis of the three phase connection complainant had remitted electric charge till December 2000 and thereafter since complainant is entitled to get the benefits under minimum guarantee scheme complainant never remitted further charges, that complainant received a notice dated 31.12.2004 from the 3^rd opposite party Assistant Engineer Electrical Section, Parassala directing the complainant to remit the arrears of current charges on or before 25.01.2005 failing which connection will be disconnected and revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated by the opposite party, that as per the said notice complainant was directed to remit an amount of Rs. 56,524/-, that since complainant availed free electricity under agricultural purpose scheme, complainant did not remit current charge availed for agricultural purpose.  The direction issued by opposite parties 1 to 3 is against law.  The action of the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint to cancel the notice dated 31.12.2004 issued to the complainant by the opposite parties and grant compensation along with cost to the complainant. 

          Opposite parties 1 to 4, on being served, entered appearance and opposite parties 1 to 3 filed version contending interalia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complainant availed electric connection for agricultural purpose vide consumer No. UKA 5836 on 18.03.2000 under three phase, that complainant already availed a connection vide No. UKA 388 on 16.01.1972 for domestic purpose, that there was a dispute regarding conversion of single phase connection to three phase and with the consent of the complainant agricultural connection was given to the complainant by drawing line through public path on 18.03.2000, that the said connection was given to the complainant on the strength of the certificate issued by agricultural officer, that on receiving application from the complainant 2^nd opposite party inspected the site and initiated speedy steps for providing agricultural connection, that with the consent of the complainant the estimate of drawing line was revised and on the basis of the new connection, complainant remitted current charges for 3 phase till December 2000.  Since complainant is a beneficiary of minimum guarantee scheme he was given subsidy of Rs. 20,000/- and after adjusting the said subsidy against the total estimate of Rs. 37,673/- , the balance came to Rs. 17,673/- and complainant agreed to meet other administrative expenses and on the basis of the said agreement executed by the complainant the aforesaid connection was given to him by the opposite parties.  Since the agricultural officer concerned refused to pay the minimum guarantee amount to the complainant opposite party issued invoice to the consumer concerned, that opposite party has given all the benefits as per law to the consumer and the invoice issued to the consumer is as per law.  There is no deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party in issuing the aforesaid invoice.  As such complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.  Opposite parties are entitled to get the bill amount from the consumer, that on 15.07.2005 when the said connection was inspected by the opposite parties it was found that agricultural connection is used for non-agricultural purpose and upon which a site mahazar was prepared and as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the opposite parties.  Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the notice/invoice dated 31.12.2004 issued by the 3^rd opposite party cancelled?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P9 and Ext. C1 commission report.  In rebuttal, the 2^nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D14.

Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly complainant availed electric connection for agricultural purpose, that initially complainant availed a single phase connection for the said purpose, subsequently the said connection was converted into a three phase connection on 18.03.2000.  The issue herein is centred around the three phase connection and its facilitating cost.  According to complainant he is a beneficiary under the minimum guarantee scheme and he is not liable to remit current charges availed for agricultural purpose.  It has been the case of the complainant that he had remitted electricity charges of the new three phase connection till December 2000, thereafter he did not remit the current charges since he was the beneficiary of the minimum guarantee scheme provided by the government.  The very case of the complainant is that he received a notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party, Assistant Engineer, electrical Section, Parassala instructing him to remit Rs. 56,524/- on or before 25.01.2005 failing which the new three phase connection will be disconnected and revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated by the opposite parties.  It is the stand of the complainant that he is entitled to get free electricity for agricultural purpose scheme and accordingly he is not liable to pay any amount for current charges availed for agricultural purpose.  According to him the decision of the opposite party to collect electricity charges from agricultural consumer is unilateral and against law.  Complainant has led evidence by way of oral testimony and Exts. P1 to P9.  Ext. P1 is the copy of the certificate dated 17.01.1996 issued by Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kulathoor.  As per Ext. P1 Sri. A. Thomson, complainant herein, has actually installed an electric pump set of 5 HP in 185 cent plots of survey No. 167/1, 169/7, 169/2 Kulathoor Panchayat purely for agricultural purposes, that the said certificate is issued for proceeding to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB Office, Parassala.  Ext. P2 is the interim receipt dated 29.01.1996 for Rs. 300/- issued by KSEB in the name of Thomson.  Ext. P3 is the interim receipt dated 11.08.2000 for Rs. 217/-issued by KSEB in the name of A. Thomson.  Ext. P4 series include copy of the petition filed by Assistant Executive Engineer, Parassala and a notice issued by District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram to A Thomson requesting him to be present at the time of hearing on 17.01.2001.  On perusal of Ext. P4 petition submitted before the District Collector by the petitioner Assistant Executive Engineer, Parassala against A. Thomson, the complainant herein, is in connection with an application for electric connection for domestic purpose moved by the prospective consumer M. Selvadas.  According to AEE, the service connection to the house of M. Selvadas can be given by drawing 27 meters of weather proof line tapping from the post standing on the property of the complainant herein.  The stand of the 2^nd opposite party is that the complainant herein did not agree for the proposal to draw line through his property for electric connection to M. Selvadas.  Though notice was issued to A. Thomson he did not forward any reply.  The alternative proposal made by the 2^nd opposite party by drawing 30 meters of weather proof line out of which 27 meters will cross the property of the complainant herein was objected by the complainant and hence the AEE sought permission from the Collector concerned to give service connection.  Ext. P5 is the notice in dispute dated 31.12.2004 issued by AEE, Parassala to the complainant herein directing him to make payment of Rs. 26,524/- on or before 25.01.2005 to the opposite parties.  Ext. P6 is the copy of the provisional invoice card issued by opposite parties in the name of Thomson vide consumer No. UKA 5836.  On perusal of Ext. P6 provisional invoice card it is seen that complainant had remitted amount till 12/2000.  Ext. P7 is the certificate dated 11.09.2003 issued by Agricultural Officer, stating that Thomson is eligible to get assistance under the scheme “Free supply of electricity to farmers’ through agricultural department.  Ext. P8 is the copy of the circular dated 20.09.2001 issued by Electricity Board.  On perusal of Ext. P8 it is seen that Board had issued direction to disconnect the services of all defaulted consumers except the consumers of certain specific categories including agricultural consumers eligible for free supply of electricity.   Ext. P9 is the copy of the Board order dated 24.08.2005 stating that line extension under minimum guarantee scheme will not be applicable to domestic and agricultural connections but industrial, commercial and such other consumers can be charged as per the rates approved by State Electricity Regulatory Commission.  Ext. C1 is the commission report regarding the electric connection to consumer’s premises, installation of tank and position of well and a rough sketch regarding the said connection.  Opposite party has led evidence by oral testimony of the 3^rd opposite party and Exts. D1 to D14.  Ext. D1 is the copy of letter regarding arrear details of consumer No. 5836 as on 15.03.2012.  Ext. D2 is the copy of the certificate issued by Krishi Bhavan dated 11.09.2003.  Ext. D3 is the letter from Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kulathoor to Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Parassala dated 06.10.2004 stating that electricity charge only is exempted from payment for cultivators under ‘free electricity for agricultural purpose’ scheme.  Ext. D4 is the copy of the letter dated 31.12.2004 issued by Assistant Engineer, Parassala to Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan requesting an earliest payment of current charges including consumer No. 5836 LT V Tariff.  Ext. D5 is the copy of G.O dated 04.02.1999.  As per Ext. D5 if estimate amount exceeds Rs. 20,000/- such consumers should execute a minimum guarantee agreement to the Board and such agricultural consumers should pay the minimum amount mentioned in the agreement.  Ext. D6 is the copy of the bill addressed to the agricultural officer, Krishi Bhavan dated 07.05.2004 for Rs. 1,49,578/-.  Ext. D7 is the copy of the hand written list of beneficiaries of Uchakkada Krishi Bhavan upto 03/04.  Ext. D8 is the copy of Ext. P5 notice directing Mr. Thomson to remit the amount mentioned therein on or before 25.01.2005.  Ext. D9 is the copy of Ext. P6.  Ext. D10 is the site mahazar dated 15.07.2005 prepared by Sub engineer, Electrical Section, Uchakkada in regard to consumer No. UKA 5836.  Ext. D11 is the copy of the estimate amount revised.  Ext. D12 is the copy of the Board order dated 25.02.1999.  Ext. D13 is the copy of the circular dated 01.08.2005 directing all controlling officers of electrical sections to inspect the premises of all the consumers to whom agricultural service connection are effected under their jurisdiction and proceed against them as per the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 and the Rules made there under.  As per Ext. D13 if such agricultural connections are misused for domestic purpose an amount equivalent to OYEC amount may be realized from the consumer.   Ext. D14 is the statement of regular dues of consumer No. 5836 from 01.01.2005 to 02.04.2012.  As per the said statement the total due of the consumer comes to Rs. 49,994/-.  Complainant has been cross examined by the opposite party as PW1 and 2^nd opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant as DW1.  During cross examination 2^nd opposite party has deposed that he was not the concerned officer at the time of the incident.  As regards minimum guarantee no separate application is required.  In this case complainant had given application for new connection.  During cross examination DW1 has deposed that the complainant herein has executed a minimum guarantee agreement in a stamped paper and the same was mentioned in the version also.  When asked the reason for not furnishing the said documents before the Forum, DW1 said it was misplaced due to office shifting.  DW1 has deposed that the said shifting was on 13.05.2005.  DW1 has deposed that he had identified the said document while preparing the version.  As to the aspect as to the deduction of minimum guarantee liability from the consumer’s liability DW1 deposed that the new connection was drawn not from the existing line but from the installation of a new line.  When suggested that Ext. D14 does not disclose the periodic consumption unit, DW1 said the same has been mentioned in the periodic letter.  But he admitted that the documents furnished before the forum do not disclose the periodic consumption of electricity.  DW1 has deposed further that complainant had remitted current charges till 12/2000.  Till that date complainant never raised any dispute in connection with minimum guarantee.  According to DW1 complainant at present is not an agricultural consumer, he is a domestic consumer.  Opposite party has never produced the document showing minimum guarantee executed by the complainant.  DW1 has denied the suggestion put forth by the complainant that the allegation against the complainant that he had used electricity for other purposes is a counterblast since the complainant filed a case against the opposite party.  Complainant has challenged Ext. P5 notice dated 31.12.2004 on the ground that the amount mentioned in Ext. P5 notice is against law and facts.  According to complainant as per free electricity for agricultural purpose scheme he is not liable to pay the current charges availed for agricultural purpose.  Though he had applied for conversion of connection from single phase to three phase, opposite party had agreed to provide 3 phase connection under the same estimate amount of Rs. 20,000/- and based upon the said agreement complainant got connection on 18.03.2000 and from the same electric post opposite party had given connection to domestic purpose also and the existing connection was disconnected and for conversion of the said supply opposite party had levied Rs. 217/-.  It is pertinent to point out that complainant had got such facility only after the inspection done by Assistant Executive Engineer of the concerned section.  The very case of the complainant is that if estimate amount does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- such agricultural consumers are exempted from the minimum guarantee agreement.  Opposite party has never produced the minimum guarantee agreement executed by the complainant.  The onus is on the part of the opposite party to furnish the said agreement to substantiate their contention that complainant had agreed to pay excess amount if any for conversion from single phase to 3 phase.  Unless and otherwise opposite party furnished the said agreement we cannot afford to overlook the contention of the complainant that he is entitled to get the benefit of minimum guarantee scheme.  Ext. P2 and P3 are the receipts issued by opposite party in connection with consumer No. 388 and 5836.  In Ext. P3 Rs. 217/- is seen received towards work deposit and TF.  It is pertinent to point out that as per the circular dated 20.09.2001 agricultural consumers eligible for free supply of electricity are exempted from the purview of the special drive for collection of arrears.  Opposite party has produced Ext. D5 G.O dated 04.02.1999 regarding the procedure for free electricity for agricultural purpose.  As per clause 3 of Ext. D5, if connection estimate amount does not exceed Rs. 20,000/- the agricultural consumers under the said purview will be exempted from the minimum guarantee, but if the estimate amount comes above Rs. 20,000/- the said agricultural consumers coming under the said purview will have to execute a minimum guarantee agreement to the Board and as per the terms of the said agreement they will be liable to pay the minimum amount to the Board.  The stand of the opposite party is that complainant had executed a minimum guarantee agreement while effecting conversion of electric connection from single phase to three phase.  Complainant denied the same and contends that opposite party had already agreed to provide three phase connection along the same path by drawing required line, without exceeding the estimate amount of Rs. 20000/-.  Complainant contends that the estimate amount announced earlier was of Rs. 16,500/- which was below the limit of Rs. 20,000/-.  When he approached the opposite party’s office and enquired about the connection, it was found that his seniority was overlooked and it was at that time it came to his knowledge that the estimate amount was of Rs. 16,500/-, which was noted in the Register book kept by opposite parties for agricultural connection.  Opposite parties have not produced the split up details showing that estimate amount comes above Rs. 20,000/-.  If estimate amount comes above Rs. 20,000/- such consumers should execute a minimum guarantee agreement to the Board.  According to complainant, he had never executed such a minimum guarantee agreement to the Board. According to opposite parties, complainant had executed such a minimum guarantee agreement since estimate amount exceeded Rs. 20,000/-.  If there was such a minimum guarantee agreement as asserted by the opposite party, it is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to furnish the same before this Forum.  Opposite parties have not furnished the same before us, thereby it can be inferred that no such minimum guarantee agreement was executed by the complainant to the Board.  If that be so, what can be inferred is that complainant is eligible for exemption from the minimum guarantee since the estimate amount did not cross Rs. 20,000/-.  Thereby the Ext. P5 notice dated 31.12.2004 issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant deserves to be cancelled as complainant is entitled to get the benefits of agricultural connection as per Ext. D5 G.O dated 04.02.1999.  Although issuance of Ext. P5 notice to complainant is illegal and against facts and the action of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, considering the overall situation we do not fix any compensation to complainant. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  The notice (Ext. P5) dated 31.12.2004 issued to complainant by the opposite parties is cancelled.  There will be no order as to compensation.  Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.        

   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of November 2013.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

O.P. No. 35/2005

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - A. Thomson

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of certificate dated 17.01.1996 issued by 4^th O.P

P2     - Interim receipt dated 29.01.1996 for Rs. 300/- issued by KSEB.

P3     - Interim receipt dated 11.08.2000 for Rs. 217/- issued by KSEB.

P4     - Copy of petition filed by 2^nd O.P & notice issued by District    

  Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.   

P5     - Notice dated 31.12.2004 issued by 3^rd O.P to complainant.

P6     - Copy of provisional invoice card issued by opposite party.

P7     - Certificate dated 11.09.2003 issued by 4^th O.P

P8     - Copy of circular dated 20.09.2001 issued by KSEB.

P9     - Copy of Board Order (FB) No. 2479/05 dated 24.08.2005.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

          DW1 - Anilkumar. V    

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of letter dated 15.03.2012 issued by Senior Superintendent,   

             KSEB Electrical Section, Uchakada.

D2     - Copy of certificate dated 11.09.2003 issued by Krishi Bhavan.

D3     - Letter No. KBK 20/04-05 issued by 4^th O.P to 3^rd O.P.

D4     - Copy of letter dated 31.12.2004 issued to 4^th O.P by KSEB.

D5     - Copy of Govt. Order dated 04.02.1999.

D6     - Copy of bill addressed to 4^th O.P dated 07.05.2004 for Rs. 149578/-

D7     - Copy of handwritten list of beneficiaries of Uchakada Krishibhavan.

D8     - Copy of Ext. P5 notice.

D9     - Copy of Ext. P6.

D10   - Site Mahazar dated 15.07.2005 prepared by Sub Engineer, Electrical

  Section, Uchakkada.

D11   - Copy of estimate amount prepeared by 2^nd O.P.

D12   - Copy of Board Order dated 25.02.1999 issued by KSEB.

D13   - Copy of circular dated 01.08.2005 issued by KSEB.

D14   - Statement of regular dues of consumer No. 5836 from 01.01.2005 to

   02.04.2012.

  V     COURT EXHIBIT

          C1     - Commission Report                                                                              

                                                                                                                                 Sd/-

PRESIDENT