Natural justice principles require consumers to be adequately notified and afforded an opportunity to contest substantial demands before penalties are imposed, especially after long delays.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges the short assessment bill issued on 28.02.2022 for the period from 07/2016 to 12/2016, claiming an amount of Rs. 41,925/-. Exts.P1 and P2 were issued in printed formats. While Ext.P1 pertains to the period 07/2016 to 12/2016, Ext.P2 is from 21/2019 to 8/2021.

2. The petitioner challenged the same before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) through Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the argument note preferred by the petitioner before the CGRF, specifically raising the following contentions:

“2. So far as an ordinary consumer is concerned, he is unable to understand anything from the above demands except the fact that those demands relate to period 2016 and 2019-2021. The licensee failed to establish such demands with proper notice to the consumer.

3. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the KSEBoard has issued periodical monthly/bymonthly demands to the consumer during the above mentioned months and that the consumer has admittedly paid those demands.

8. Regulation 134 says that the licensee should establish either by review or otherwise that it has undercharged the consumer and then only he can recover the amount. Here the licensee has not established with notice to the consumer that the impugned demands are due or recoverable from the consumer. No show cause notice was issued by the licensee to the consumer directing him to explain as to why the impugned demands should not be collected from him. Basic principles of natural justice are violated by the licensee. Therefore the impugned demands does not stand scrutiny of law.

9. A consumer who was peacefully sleeping after paying all his dues to the KSEBoard is called upon to pay huge demands that too after long years from the date of alleged cause of action. A licencee which has already collected all kinds of penalty for minor variations in load/voltage has now come forward with another demand in the form of low voltage surcharge after about six years of the cause of action. Limitation Act clearly bars a claim for money after three years of cause of action.”

3. The CGRF, through Ext.P4 order, did not refer to the above contentions at all and rejected the claim of the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner approached the Kerala State Electricity Ombudsman through Ext.P5, wherein a similar ground was raised in paragraph No.9.

4. The Ombudsman, by Ext.P6 order, found that the petitioner did not object to the bill within 30 days of demand, and cannot be allowed to raise any dispute against Ext.P1 bill issued under Regulation 134 of the Code. It was also found that the bill was raised based on the tariff order issued by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, and therefore, there is no requirement to hear the petitioner. Accordingly, the decision of the CGRF was confirmed by the Ombudsman. The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 review, which was partly allowed through Ext.P8 order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Regulation 134, the licensee has to establish, either by review or otherwise, that it has undercharged or overcharged the consumer, which, according to him, presupposes an exercise to determine the same, with the involvement of the consumer. Though specific contention was taken before the CGRF as well as the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman considered the same and found that no such hearing is contemplated, as the petitioner can file their objections within 30 days, the time granted for the payment of the amount stipulated in the notice under 134.

6. The said reasoning cannot be accepted for more reasons than one. In the instant case, it is alleged that there was a short OYEC for the period from 07/2016 to 12/2016, and for the pe