State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Secretary, Kseb, vs Suresh.S, S/O Sreedharan, on 7 February, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/332 (Arisen out of Order Dated 15/11/2010 in Case No. CC/06/122 of District Thiruvananthapuram) 1. The Secretary,KSEB Vydyuthi Bhavan,Pattom,Trivandrum Trivandrum Kerala 2. The Exe.Engineer,Electrical section, Punalur Kerala 3. The Asst.Exe.Engineer,Electrical Section Kadakkal Kerala 4. The Asst.Engineer,Electrical Section Chithara Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Suresh S Lekshmi Bhavan,Ozhukupara,Madathara,Trivandrum Trivandrum Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 332/2011
JUDGMENT DATED:07-02-2012
PRESENT:
SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
SMT. A.RADHA : MEMBER 1. Secretary, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Punalur. : APPELLANTS 3. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Section, Kadakkal. 4. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chithira. (By Adv: Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs. Suresh.S, S/o Sreedharan, Lekshmi Bhavan, Ozhukupara, : RESPONDENT Madathara.P.O, TVPM-691 541. (By Adv:Sri.Yahiakhan) JUDGMENT SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
The order dated:15.11.2010 of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC.122/06 is being assailed in this appeal by the opposite parties who are under directions to cancel the notice dated:27.3.06.
2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he had taken an electric connection from the opposite parties under LT-VII-A tariff and that he was regularly paying the bills issued by the opposite parties and that on 27.3.06 the opposite party issued a notice stating that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.11,440/- towards the short remittance of electricity charges for the period from 6/01 to 5/04. The complainant had alleged that he was not liable to pay the amount since he had paid the bills issued by the opposite parties and the notice dated:27.3.06 was barred by limitation. He had prayed for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill and to pay compensation and cost.
3. Resisting the complaint the opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant was given connection under LT-VII-A tariff which was a 3 phase connection. It was submitted that by mistake the fixed charges were assessed on the presumption that the connection was a single phase one. It was also submitted that the mistake was found by the KSEB's Audit Wing and the bill was issued only to realize the short assessment in the fixed charges for the period from 6/01 to 5/04. They had also submitted that no penalty or interest or other surcharge was directed to be paid by the complainant.
4. Evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P9 on his side. On the side of the opposite parties Ext.D1, the copy of the agreement, was marked.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the appellants to cancel Ext.P9 notice dated:27.3.06 cannot be sustained on the ground that the opposite parties had every right to correct a mistake. It is submitted by him that the complainant had no case that the connection was not a 3 phase one. He has also stated that the charges levied were for the single phase connection and consequent to the detection of the mistake, short assessment bill was issued for the period from 6/01 to 5/04. He has also advanced the contention that section 56(2) of the Electricity Act has no bearing in the instant case as the Act came into force only on 10.6.2003 which has no retrospective effect. The learned counsel argued for setting aside the order of the Forum.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum. It is his very case that the bills were issued under LT-VII-A tariff and the complainant had remitted all the bills without fault. He has also a case that the opposite parties ought to have been vigilant in giving the bills under the correct tariff and rates. He has also submitted that the complainant cannot be blamed for assessment for such a long period since it was after a period of 5 years that the opposite parties have issued the bill for Rs.11,440/-. It is also argued by him that as per Sec.56(2) complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opposite parties since the bill was issued only in 2006 and the cause of action had arisen in 2001.
8. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records we find that the complainant was given a bill for Rs.11,440/- in 2006 only though the connection was given as back in 2001. The complainant would say that he is not liable to pay the amount since the bill was issued after such a long lapse. We find that the supply was given as 3 phase connection and the complainant has no case that it was not a 3 phase connection. The complainant has only a case that he is not liable to pay the amount since the bill issued was much late. It is found that from 6/04 onwards the complainant was remitting the charges considering the connection as 3 phase. On examination of the entire facts and circumstances it is found that the opposite parties had issued the bill after a long period. But it is also to be noted that complainant was aware of the fact that the connection was 3 phase and he ought to have remitted fixed charges for 3 phase connection. It is admitted that he had been remitting the fixed charges for single phase only. All the same it is also found that Sec.56(2) of the new Electricity Act empowers the opposite parties to collect charges at least for a period of 2 years. In the instant case it is found that the bill is for a period of 3 years. It will be just and fair to allow the opposite parties/appellants to realize the short assessment bill for a period of 2 years prior to the date of inspection by the audit group of the KSEB. The complainant is liable to pay the charges without any penalty.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part thereby the opposite parties/appellants are at liberty to issue a fresh bill for a period of 2 years prior to the date of inspection by the audit wing of the KSEB towards the short assessment and the complainant is liable to pay the said amount within a period of 2 weeks from the date of issue of the bill failing which he is liable to pay interest also at the rates prevailing in the KSEB. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Office is directed to send back the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below.
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER A.RADHA : MEMBER VL.
[ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER