PRO on Comp.75-10-11
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ORDER OF THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, CENTRAL REGION, ERNAKULAM Present (1) Sri. Siji Jose Chairperson (2) Sri. Ivan Philipose Member (3) Smt. A. Girija Member Petitioner Smt. Kamli Tharakan, Shibhumi, 814, Beach road, Fort Kochi, Kochi-1. Respondent 1) The Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB, Thoppumpady. 2) The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Fort Kochi. =========================================================== No.CGRF-CR/Comp. 75/2010-11/ Dated: 25/05/2011 ORDER The petitioner had filed a complaint before the CGRF on 31/12/2010. The petitioner appealed the Forum to direct the respondent to refund/adjust the excess amount collected under LT VII A from her for the period from 11/2006 to 10/2008 with interest. The petitioner stated in her petition that she was highly aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering her complaint of collecting excess energy charges in LT VIIA tariff for her residential building for the period from 11/06 to 10/08 and refusal to refund the same. The petitioner’s husband had purchased the residential building and property from Lipton and Co. in the year 1987 and up to September 2006, the electricity connection was in the name of Lipton and Co under LT I A tariff. In September 2006, the petitioner changed the electricity connection in her name and from October 2006 onwards the bills were issued in petitioner’s name in LT IA tariff. But from 11/06 to 10/08 without any notice the petitioner was wrongly billed under LT VIIA commercial tariff and which was never brought to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner was continuously residing with her family in the above building from 1987 onwards and is using the same as their residential house. When realized the anomaly in the tariff, the petitioner submitted a complaint to the respondent on 14/10/08 to rectify the mistake and to refund the amount collected excessively in LT VIIA tariff. The AE, Ele. Section, Fort Kochi and the AEE, Thoppumpady inspected the premises and having fully satisfied that the premises is a residential building and is used only for domestic purpose, converted the billing into LT IA from 11/08 onwards. But there was no action or steps to refund the excesses amount collected in LT VIIA tariff for the period from 11/06 to 10/08. The petitioner again submitted a complaint on 19/1/09 to refund the amount collected excessively in LT VIIA. Also the petitioner submitted a complaint dtd. 10/3/09 to the EE, Ele. Division, Mattancherry and reminded on 22/4/09 & 2 10/6/09. After a period of more than 20 months, the EE, Mattancherry issued a letter dtd. 1/7/2010 intimating that the AE, Fort Kochi had reported that an office was functioning in the building for the period from 11/06 to 10/08 and hence the tariff was changed to LT VIIA with effect from 11/06 and when applied for a tariff change on 17/10/08 by the petitioner, it was transferred to LT IA. The petitioner submitted a reply on 20/7/2010 that it was unheard that the KSEB authorities could automatically change the tariff from residential LT IA to commercial LT VIIA in the same consumer’s name without serving notice on the consumer. On receipt of the said letter the EE, Mattancherry issued a letter dtd. 3/8/10 stating that the petitioner had given her house on rent for running an office and that was the reason why she remitted the electricity bill under VIIA without any protest for the period from 11/06 to 10/08. Aggrieved by this the petitioner had filed her complaint before the Forum. Subsequently, the Statement of Facts from the Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical sub division, Thoppumpady was called for and the same was filed on 13/01/2011. The AEE stated that the petitioner is residing under the jurisdiction of Ele. Section, Fort Kochi with Con. No. 523 in domestic tariff and the sanctioned load was 3850 watts. The service connection was originally given to M/s. Lipton and Co. and later the ownership was transferred to the name of the petitioner on 29/9/06. On 2/12/06 the petitioner applied for the enhancement of the connected load from 3850 watts to 31440 watts. During the inspection it was noticed an office was functioning in the premises and the load enhancement was done in commercial tariff. The petitioner remitted Rs. 5000/- as additional cash deposit, Rs. 10,065/- as work deposit and new CT meter was also installed in the premises. Henceforth the bills were issued under commercial tariff till 10/08 when the office was vacated. The petitioner applied for change of tariff to domestic and the same was allowed with effect from 17/10/08. On 1/1/2009 the petitioner filed a complaint before the AE, Ele. Section, Fort Kochi regarding the refund of excess amount paid in commercial tariff from 11/06 to 10/08. The EE, Ele. Dn, Mattancherry had given the reply to the petitioner stating that the petition was dismissed since an office was functioning in this building during the period from 11/06 to 10/08. The AEE admitted that no proceedings were issued at the time of changing the tariff from domestic to commercial on 11/06. But he contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the load enhancement could be done only in commercial tariff. He further argued that the petitioner was not eligible for the refund of the amount remitted in commercial tariff during the period from 11/06 to 10/08. The hearing was conducted on 04/03/2011. Both the petitioner and the respondent reiterated their earlier written versions during the hearing. On examining the petition, the statement of facts of the respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusing all the documents of both sides, the Forum comes to the following conclusions and decisions thereof. It is noted from the bill dtd. 17/2/06 (annexure 1) that the Cons. No. 523, tariff IA 3 ф, is billed in the name of M/s. Lipton and Co. with a connected load of 3850 watts. From the bill dtd. 19/10/06 (annexure 2) it is noted that the name has 3 been changed from M/s. Lipton & Co to Mrs. Kamili Tharakan with the same connected load. The annexure 4 shows a document/approval letter dtd 9/4/07 of the ROC (Registrar of Companies) Ernakulam issued to Sri. Abraham John Tharakan, 814, Shibhumi, Fort Kochi for the renewal of the company name “Amalgam Convenience stores (India) Pvt. Ltd. This document relates to the registration of a new company in the address shown which is the same address noted in the bill dtd. 19/10/06 (annexure 2). No other address or site of the company is mentioned in the approval letter of the ROC Ernakulam. From this it is to be presumed that the husband of the petitioner was using the premises for his business purpose which may be the reason why the tariff was changed from LT I (a) to LT VII (a) seeing the company load or some proof in the premises, the meter reader would have reported for misuse of tariff. However it is to be noted that the consumer was not given any notice or penalized for the same and also the petitioner never complained about it until she requested for a change of tariff on 14/10/08 (annexure 6). The telephone bill and passport copy of the petitioner cannot be treated as a document to prove she is using the building purely for domestic purpose but can be considered only as a proof of address. It is to note that though the house is in her name or the ownership of the connection changed to her name, her husband who was a business man was residing with her and was doing some business in the premises in the name “AMALGAM CONVENIENCE STORES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. This is very clear fact from the document dtd 9/4/07 (annexure 4) produced by the petitioner otherwise it would be difficult to arrive to such a conclusion. This has been mentioned (though, it is not specifically mentioned about the type of business or person doing the business) in the letter dtd. 1/7/10 (annexure 12) and letter dtd. 3/8/10 (annexure 14) from the Exe. Engineer, Ele. Division, Mattancherry referring to the petition from the petitioner that her claim for a refund cannot be admitted. It is noted that the connected load of the consumer has been got enhanced from 3.85KW to 31.40 KW by changing the 3 phase ordinary meter to a 3ф CT meter and the consumer got this alteration prior to her application dtd. 14/10/08 [(in the proforma (annexure 7) and in the certificate (annexure 7) it is mentioned as the CT connections existing] in between 3/06 and 10/08 and neither the respondent’s field staff nor the petitioner has stated any thing about it which is again noted suspicious about the tariff change occurred during 2006. May be, since no proper records are maintained in the section office, the details are not forth coming now. The AEE, Ele. Sub Division, Thoppumpady may enquire into the matter to find out any conspiracy done by any Board staff in the alteration of the connected load whether any sanction has been given by him, whether the alteration has been done prior to purchase of the premises by the petitioner or after that and how it has been done and give a report of the matter to the EE, Ele.