KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 216/2021
JUDGMENT DATED: 27.01.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 291/2015 of CDRC, Kollam)
PRESENT:
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
N. Viswambharan, Viswa Vihar, U.P.S. Junction, Edamon P.O., Punalur-691 307.
(Party in person)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- A.E., KSEB, Electricity Section, Thenmala-691 308.
- Secretary, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Advs. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair & N.G. Mahesh)
JUDGMENT
SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.: MEMBER
This is an appeal filed under Sec. 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the order dated 19.07.2021 in C.C. No. 291/2015 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (District Commission for short). The District Commission dismissed the complaint with an observation that the complainant can obtain independent electric connection to the building bearing No. TP XI/23, if he so desires and that the complainant is exonerated from paying any further interest or penal interest, other than the amount shown in Ext. P7 penal bill.
2. The brief details of the complaint are as follows: The appellant/complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) with consumer No. 3776. The complainant is having a residential building named ‘Vishwa Vihar’ under building Nos. XI/230 and XI/231 (New Nos. TP XI/22 and XI/23). This building was purchased by the complainant from late Mr. Meera Sahib. There was some dispute between him and KSEB regarding ownership transfer, which was compromised on 27.09.2012. The ownership was changed to his name on 22.10.2012. The present complaint is regarding inspection of his residential premises by the KSEB officials on 20.11.2015 and issuance of a bill for payment of penalty amount of Rs. 9,410/- for alleged unauthorised use of electricity by taking an extension to another independent building. A site mahazar was prepared by the officials on 20.11.2015 and a demand notice for remitting the penalty amount was issued thereafter. The complainant submitted that the connection to the premises was given as early in 1958 and both the houses were connected together and the second building cannot be considered as another independent building. The complainant further submitted that he has not taken unauthorized connection and that building No. XI/231 is connected to the building where the connection is given. According to him the case was preplanned by AE, KSEB, Thenmala, because of personal enmity. He is a bonafide consumer and penal action against him is unwarranted and hence he prayed for quashing the bill and also claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint and submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the bill is issued under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant. The unauthorized use of electricity was detected on 20.11.2015 when the Section Squad inspected the premises of the complainant. A site mahazar was prepared in the presence of the complainant which was acknowledged by him. According to the opposite parties, both the buildings are independent which required separate electricity connections. The distance between the two buildings is 5 m and so these buildings can be considered only as independent buildings. Local authority has given separate numbers to these buildings. Taking the connection by looping wires from the meter board of the first building to the second building is unauthorized use of electricity under the Act. The penalty bill of Rs. 9,410/- was sent to him with a detailed calculation by registered post. Detection of unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant cannot be considered as deficiency in service. Opposite parties submitted that there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Evidence in the case consisted of oral examination of PW1 to PW4 and Exts. P1 to P14 marked on the side of the complainant. Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. There was no oral examination on their side. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant has filed this appeal.
5. Heard both sides. The appellant/complainant has appeared in person. He submitted that the site mahazar was not prepared by the authorized person and that it was not prepared as per the prescribed procedure. He submitted that both the buildings are connected and the distance between the two buildings is only 2 ft. He also submitted that when the ownership was changed to his name the Electricity Board officials came there and inspected the premises and approved the connection. Extension of electric connection to the adjacent building is permitted as it is owned by him and that such use was not objected by the KSEB officials at the time of ownership transfer. He has not taken any unauthorised connection or wiring and so he cannot be charged for unauthorised use of electricity. He submits that the inspection of the premises and issuance of penalty bill is due to the personal enmity of the Assistant Engineer, Thenmala, against him. Hence he prays for setting aside the order of the District Commission by quashing the penal bill Ext. P7.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellant extended the connection given to him to another independent building situated outside the premises of the house building, by looping wire from the meter board and thereby he has made unauthorized use of electricity connection which is an offence under the Electricity Act. Though he was continuing this unauthorized use of electricity for many years the penalty is calculated only for 12 months. The appellant himself has admitted that he has taken extension to the second building. The Ext. D1 certificate issued by the Grama Panchayath confirms that there are two independent buildings owned by the appellant/ complainant. Transfer of ownership of electric connection is given for the first building only. Ext. D3 site mahazar is prepared as per the usual procedure and Ext P7 bill is issued as approved by the appropriate authority and there is no violation whatsoever. Learned counsel submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and hence he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
7. We have considered the submissions on both sides and carefully gone through the records. It is admitted that the appellant/complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and the electric connection is in his name from 2012 onwards. It is also admitted that there is only one electric connection and that the appellant is having two independent buildings which are used for domestic purpose. We observe that the extension taken by the appellant is only for domestic purpose and there is no allegation that it is taken for any commercial activity for which higher tariff is applicable. There is no charge against the appellant that the electricity consumed in respect of second building is not reflected in the meter reading. But he failed to abide by the rule that separate independent buildings require separate electric connections. Various issues, facts and evidence in this case are elaborately discussed by the District Commission in its order.
8. It is evident that the Ext D3 site mahazar was acknowledged by the appellant/complainant after the inspection on 20.11.2015. There is nothing in evidence to prove the allegations raised by the appellant/complainant that the Electricity Board officials conducted the inspection at his residential premises and issued the penal bill only to mentally harass him. We concur with the findings of the District Commission that there is no merit in the contention of the appellant /complainant in this regard and that the concerned official was competent to conduct the inspection.
9. As per the Electricity Regulations separate connections are required to be taken by the consumer for separate, independent buildings. Hence the main issue in the case is to ascertain whether the appellant/complainant is having two independent buildings requiring separate electric connection. As per the certificate issued by the Thenmala Grama Panchayath (Ext D1), there are two buildings in the name of the appellant – TP XI/22 and XI/23 (revised numbers). Hence it is evident that the appellant owns two independent buildings and that the second building is not attached/inter connected. So long as the second building is not an integral part of the first building (like car shed, cattle shed etc), the respondents/opposite parties are right in taking the stand that the appellant is required to take a separate connection for the second building. Hence we are of the view that the extension taken by the appellant from the first building to the second building is not in order and the action taken by the Electricity officials cannot be said to be wrong. However, they also erred in not finding the irregularity when the ownership was transferred in the name of the appellant. The action taken is to rectify the omission. We do not find any infirmity in the finding of the District Commission, dismissing the complaint with certain observations.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is disposed of as per the following directions:
- The appellant is required to pay only the amount demanded as per Ext. P7 bill.
- After payment of the amount as per Ext. P7 bill, the appellant may regularise the connection by submitting an application for separate electric connection for the second building No. TP XI/231 (New No. TP XI/23).
- As and when the application is submitted by the appellant, the respondents shall provide the electric connection within two months from the date of receipt of the application, after following the prescribed procedure.
- No costs.
Sd/-
T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sd/-
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. : MEMBER
jb
