State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Leelamma Philip, vs 1. Kerala State Electricity Board, on 30 November, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/189 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/12/2012 in Case No. cc/12/113 of District Pathanamthitta) 1. Leelamma Philip Nedumom, Ezhamkulam ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KSEB TVM ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI PRESIDENT SRI. V. V. JOSE MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 189/13
JUDGMENT DATED:30.11.2013
(Against the order in CC.113/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta, dtd: 21.11.2012)
PRESENT :
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT
SHRI. V.V JOSE : MEMBER
Leelamma Philip,
Thondalil Grace Villa, : APPELLANT
Nedumon, Ezhamkulam.
(By Adv: Sri.S. Reghukumar)
Vs.
Kerala State Electricity Board,
R/by its Secretary, KSEB,
Vaidyuthi Bhavanam,
Thiruvananthapuram.
: RESPONDENTS
Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section, KSEB,
Ezhamkulam.
(By Adv: Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATBH ALI: PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.113/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated:21.11.2012 dismissing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant as stated in her complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-
The complainant had electric connection to her house she has been regularly paying the electricity bill. On May 05, 2010 complainant received for Rs.28,690/- alleging that consumption of excess energy was detected which was used some other purpose. She was also directed to single-phase connection to 3 phase connection. The above bill was subsequently revised to Rs.14,201/- on May 27, 2010. Complainant has used the electricity only for domestic purpose and the complainant was an aged lady. She remitted that amount and converted single phase connection to 3 phase connection. Now the 2nd opposite party has issued an additional bill for Rs.26,105/- assessed as short assessment bill to the complainant. Unauthorised use by the complainant was already assessed and the 2nd opposite party. He has no manner of right or authority to re-assess the bill for second time. Therefore complainant filed the complaint to set aside the bill dated, April 23, 2012 and claiming a compensation of Rs.5000/-.
3. First appellant/First opposite party is KSEB represented by its Secretary and 2nd opposite party was the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Ezhamkulam. They in their version contended that the bill issued by the 2nd opposite party on May 05, 2010 was not correct as per Section 50 (6) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. This was pointed out by the Regional Audit Officer on the inspection on 7.4.2012. Complainant misused the electric connection for cable TV net work. Provisional bill for Rs,28,690/- was issued to the complainant. Second opposite party heard the complaint of the complainant and revised bill for 6 months as Rs.14,201/-. Complainant has remitted that amount. On April 7, 2012 the Regional Audit officer, Pathanamthitta on his inspection point out that assessment made by the 2nd opposite party was incorrect as per section 50 (6) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, Section 50 (6). Under Section 24(5) of Supply code the licensee can re-assess the calculation if short assessment is found. At the time of inspection of the officers of Electricity Department complainant was found working power injector and the UPS and son of the complainant was conducting a cable TV net work. In the case of unauthorized use of electricity assessment shall be made for the entire connected load at a rate equal to twice the tariff that is applicable to the relevant category of service. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. The son of the complainant filed proof affidavit before the Forum an Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties 1 and 2. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the bill Ext.A3 is valid and directed the complainant to pay the amount due under the same and dismissed the complaint. Now the complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
5. Heard both the counsels.
The following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether the opposite parties are entitled to revise a bill issued?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
It is the admitted case that the opposite parties issued Ext.A1 provisional bill dated, May 05, 2010 of Rs.28,690/-. Subsequently the bill was revised and a revised bill Ext.A2 was issued on 28.5.2010 for Rs.14201/-. Complainant paid that amount. Thereafter on 23.4.2012 Ext.A3 short assessment bill for Rs.26,105/- was issued to the complainant.
6. The counsel for the appellant argued that the bill Ext.A2 has become final and that opposite party has no power to revise the same and that therefore Ext.A3 the short assessment bill for Rs.26,105/- dated, 2012 is illegal. We find force in the above contention of the appellant/complainant. Our High Court in Jomy Thomas Manjooran Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board 2013 (1) KLT 595 has categorically held that under Electricity Act no statutory power is conferred on Assessing Officer enabling reopening, revision or re-assessment and he is not competent to deal with the matter, after issuance of final order of assessment. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions the opposite parties have no power to review the bill Ext.A1. That being so short assessment bill Ext.A3 dated, April 23, 2012 has to be cancelled. The finding of the Forum on this point is set aside. It follows that this appeal has to be allowed and the complaint before the Forum has also to be allowed.
In the result appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Forum dated, November 23, 2012 in CC.113/12 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta dismissing the complaint is set aside. The complaint is allowed and the short assessment bill Ext.A3 dated:23.4.2012 is hereby set aside. Complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.1000/- before the Forum and a compensation of Rs.2000/-. In this appeal also complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.2000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT V.V JOSE : MEMBER VL.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE SRI P.Q.BARKATH ALI] PRESIDENT [ SRI. V. V. JOSE] MEMBER