Disconnection Of Agricultural Power Supply, Kerala State Electricity Board Should Pay 2.5 Lakh Compensation: Thrissur Consumer Commission
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu along with Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members) partly allowed a consumer complaint against Kerala State Electricity Board for issues related to disconnection of power supply to an agricultural connection. The commission found that despite the complainant clearing arrears and following instructions...
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu along with Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members) partly allowed a consumer complaint against Kerala State Electricity Board for issues related to disconnection of power supply to an agricultural connection. The commission found that despite the complainant clearing arrears and following instructions for repairs, the power supply was not reinstated. While allowing the complaint, the Commission held KSEB liable for deficiency in their service, as the board failed to provide clear instructions and proper communication regarding reconnection. Consequently, the Board was directed to compensate the complainant for financial losses.
Brief Facts
Ramadas K.K. (Complainant) filed a consumer complaint against the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) regarding his agricultural power supply. For years, he used this connection to water his coconut fields in Thalikulam village. But in 2010, he discovered that his power supply was suddenly cut off, without any prior notice of unpaid bills. Despite not receiving any such notices, he paid Rs. 9,014/- after receiving a revenue recovery notice. However, even after this payment, the power remained disconnected.
Ramadas then followed the Electricity board's repair suggestions, spending Rs. 11,738/-. Yet he was asked for more documents, resulting in his crops withering due to the lack of water. He accused the KSEB of corruption, service deficiency, and unfair trade practices, contending an annual financial loss of around 1.5 lakhs because of their actions. As a result, he sought the reinstatement of power, reimbursement for repair costs, and compensation through the consumer complaint.
Arguments of Kerala State Electricity Board
The Electricity Board admitted that the complainant had an agricultural connection but argued that the Agricultural Officer was not made a party in the consumer proceedings. Further, they questioned the complaint's validity, stating that the matter was already in Revenue Recovery proceedings. They contended that the Agricultural Officer determines who can get an agricultural power connection. They claimed that the complainant owed arrears because he was not listed as an eligible farmer by the Agricultural Officer. Additionally, KSEB mentioned the land's proximity to the beach, stating that the motor shed suffered corrosion. They also claimed the complainant hadn't followed their repair instructions.
Observations of the Commission
While addressing the complaint's maintainability, the Commission found that even though the complainant settled the Revenue Recovery issue by paying the arrears, the dispute remained regarding the services expected from the Electricity Board after payment. The commission established that the complainant falls under the definition of a "Consumer" as per the Consumer Protection Act.
Regarding deficiencies in service, the commission found fault with the Electricity Board's handling of the complainant's requests for reconnection. They noted that despite the complainant's efforts to comply with their directions, the Board failed to respond transparently. Additionally, the commission highlighted that the Board had failed to prove proper compliance with disconnection rules under the Electricity Act.
As a result, they held the Kerala State Electricity Board liable for deficiency in service, directing them to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant, along with 9% annual interest. The decision was ordered to be complied within one month.
Case Title: Ramadas K.K. vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Thalikkulam & Ors.
Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. A.D. Benny
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Adv. Vijin Karthik