S. VAIDYANATHAN vs TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant is the Managing Director of Krishna Engineering Co. (P) Ltd., which is a small scale industrial unit. THE Complainant has been availing of 3 LT supply services bearing Nos. 47, 48 & 49. THE unit was expanded and an application was made for supply of 400 KVA - HT load on 27.3.89. THE Opposite Parties accepted the application and as per their instructions, the Complainant paid Rs. 33,025/- as service charges and Rs. 64,000/- as security deposit. High Tension service connection No. 128 was given to the Complainant on 31.3.90 and the Complainant has been availing of the same. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are collecting charges under Tariff No. VII instead of Tariff No. 1 and the Complainant has reserved his right in respect thereof. This is not therefore the subject-matter of this complaint. THE Complainant has consumed in April, 1990 -198 KVA, in May, 1990 -215.22 KVA, in June, 1990 - 206.00 KVA and in July, 1990 - 344.00 KVA and has paid charges therefor at Rs. 55/- per KVA. THE third Opposite Party however, collected charges for excess consumption at Rs. 9,460/- for April 1990, Rs. 11,354.20 for May 1990, Rs. 10,340/- for June 1990 and Rs. 25,520/- for July 1990, in all Rs. 56,674.20. THE collection of this penalty is illegal and has to be refunded. On account of this collection, the Complainant has been put to loss which is estimated at Rs. 1,41,685.50. He has also claimed Rs. 50,000.30 as compensation for mental agony. The second Opposite Party has filed a counter on his behalf and on behalf of the first and third Opposite Parties. It is pointed out that the Complainant was having 3 LT services bearing Nos. 47, 48 and 49. He wanted conversion into HT services in March, 1989. His application for a contract load of 400 KVA was allowed subject to bifurcation of the existing 11 KV Aria-mangalam feeder fed off Tiruverumber 110/11 KV S.S. and requested the Complainant to pay the service connection charges and deposit amount. This has been duly intimated to the Complainant in the letter dated 24.6.89.The Complainant has accepted this condition and remitted the security deposit and service connection charges. In the sanctioned demand he was permitted to use only 112 KVA as acknowledged in the test report. But the Complainant availed of 198 KVA in April, 1990, 215-22 KVA in May, 1990, 206-52 KVA in June, 1990 and 344 KVA in July, 1990. These consumption were in excess of the permitted demand of 112 KVA. The test report signed by the Complainant on 30.7.90 would also show these facts. The Complainant was permitted to use 400 KVA only from 30.7.90. As he had consumed more than the permitted demand, from April to July, 1990, compensation charges as per contract were levied and collected in accordance with the rules. There is no deficiency.

Exhs. A1 to A8 and B1 to B13 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in

THE point that arises for determination is whether there has been any deficiency in a service on the part of the Opposite Parties and to what relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled. Point: The Complainant''s company is a small scale industrial unit which has been availing of 3 L.T. supply electric energy under Service Connection Nos. 47, 48 & 49. In March, 1989, he applied for conversion of the supply to H.T. supply of 400 KVA load. According to the Complainant this application was accepted and he was called upon to pay Rs. 64,000/- as security deposit and Rs. 33,025/- as service charges. He was given H.T. service connection No. 128 on 31.3.90 and he has been availing of this connection since then. There is no dispute on these matters.

THE Complainant has availed of the following power loads. April 1990 - 198 KVA May 1990 - 215.22 KVA June 1990 - 206.00 KVA July 1990 - 344.00 KVA Exhs. A4, A6, A7, and A8 are the bills respectively. THE Complainant has duly paid the charges for this consumption. But the Opposite Parties have collected excess amount of Rs. 9,460/- for April 1990, Rs. 11,354.20 for May 1990, Rs. 10,340/- for June 1990, and Rs. 25,520/- for July 1990, on the ground that the Complainant has consumed over and above the limited demand of 112 KVA. THE case of the Complainant is that this recovery amount of Rs. 56/674.20 is illegal and must be refunded with compensation. The case of the Opposite Parties is that the Complainant''s application for supply of 400 KVA H.T. electric energy was subjected to the condition of bifurcation of the existing 11 KV. Ariamangalam feeder fed off Tiruverumbur 110/ 11 KV SS and this was duly intimated to the Complainant by letter dated 24.6.89. Exh. B2 is the said letter. Condition No. 19 in the said letter runs as follows: "The supply will be effected only after the bifurcation of the existing 11 KV Ariamangalam feeder fed off Tiruverambur 110/11 KV S.S."

The receipt of this letter of the Complainant is acknowledged in Exh. B3 letter from the Complainant to the department dated 25.7.89. It is, therefore, clear that the full 400 KVA load will be supplied to the Complainant only after the bifurcation. Till then under Exh. B4 order, the Complainant was permitted to use a H.T. load of 112 KVA. The Complainant cannot plead ignorance of this Exh. B5 is the first test report dated 31.3.90 when the H.T. supply was given to the Complainant. This has been signed on behalf of the Complainant and on the licensed contractor. The first test report Exh. B5 clearly shows that the Complainant has been permitted to consume only to 11 KVA. Exh. B6 is dated 30.7.90 on which date the supply load has been increased to 400 KVA. This has also been signed on behalf of the Complainant''s company and on behalf of the licensed electrician. Exhs. A4, A6, A7 and A8 are the bills for the months of April, May, June and July, 1990 during which months, the Complainant is alleged to have consumed in excess for which penal charges have been collected. On the top of these bills it is clearly mentioned that the demand is 112 KVA. Hence the contention of the Complainant that he was permitted to use 400 KVA from the very beginning is untenable. He has been permitted to use only 112 KVA till the bifurcation and since he has consumed in excess during the months of April, May, June and July penal charges have been levied for the excess units consumed. Exh. B-1 contains the terms and conditions of supply. Condition 18.02 lays down that for exhibiting the sanctioned maximum demand, the charges per KVA exceeded shall be at double the normal rate. It is on the basis of this rule, the Opposite Parties have claimed double the rate for the excess units consumed every month. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is not entitled to refund of this amount of Rs. 56,674.20 or for any compensation.

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.