Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/229

SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABDUL SHAFAQ - Opp.Party(s)

B. SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

31 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.229/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.78/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated, 25/11/2013)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                             :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS:

 

1. K.S.E. Board, Rep: by Secretary,

Thiruvananthapuram.

 

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Major Section, No.1,

Irinjalakuda-680 121.

 

1. Asst: Engineer, Electrical Section No.1,

Irinjalakuda, KSEB-680 121.

 

(By Adv:  B. Sakthidharan Nair)                   

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENT:

 

          Abdul Shafaq, Palayamkott House,

M.G. Road, Irinjalakuda-680 121.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

          Appellants are the opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C.No.78/09 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur, who preferred this appeal against the impugned order.

          2.  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having electricity connection and was conducting a Bakery.  He was paying the electricity charges regularly.  The complainant purchase               2 machines for the commercial purpose which was informed to the opposite party whereby the opposite parties inspected the premises and reported that the complainant is using additional current charges than the connected load.  On 16/01/2009 a bill was issued for Rs.48,870/- towards unauthorized additional connected load.  The bill includes the fixed charges for the unauthorized additional load with interest and also penalty.  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant submitted a request which was not considered and issued a notice dated 30/01/2009 for dis-connection.  The complainant filed this complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in issuing exorbitant bill.  It is also prayed for cancellation of the bill and also for Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings.

          3.  The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant is conducting a Bakery with a ice-cream parlour and the connected load was 3 KW under LT-VII A tariff and was remitting bi-monthly charges.  The complainant had never informed the opposite party regarding the additional connected load.  It is mandatory to inform and file application for additional load and obtain permission from the opposite parties.  On 30/12/2008 the inspection squad from the Regional Audit Office found out unauthorized connected load of 6.908 KW at the complainant’s premises. It is informed by the complainant that he installed 2 machines having 1¹/₂ HP and 1 HP a week prior to the inspection.  On the request of the complainant the connected load was fixed as 4.980 KW and prepared a mahazar and a copy was handed over to the complainant.  As per Section 126 of the Electricity Act the complainant is liable to pay double charge for one year and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.48,870/- to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are also entitled for the penalty under Section 126(5&6).  So also the dis-connection of electricity can be imposed by the opposite parties under the terms and Conditions of Supply 2005, Clause 51(2).  Hence the complainant is liable to pay the bill issued by the opposite parties.

          4.  No oral evidence on the part of complainant and filed proof affidavit with Exbts: P1 to P3.  The opposite party was examined as RW1 and the documents were marked as R1 to R4.

          5.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the penal bill for Rs.48,870/- was issued by the opposite parties consequent to the detection of unauthorized connected load of 4.980 KW under Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003. The counsel brought our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Anis Ahamed Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited wherein it is observed that the Hon’ble District Forum lacks jurisdiction to determine a dispute in respect of the assessment made under Section 126 of Electricity Act.  It is argued that the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint on that ground itself.  No evidence adduced by the complainant that he had regularized the additional connected load.  It is mandatory to apply to the Electricity Board furnishing the test report and additional deposit in order to increase the capacity of motors, lights etc. which was not done in this case.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased and installed 2 machines having 2½  HP prior to one week of the inspection at the premises of the complainant.  The complainant was paying regularly for 3 KW under LT-VII A and the opposite parties issued the penal bill fixing the load as 4.980 KW and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount.  The District Forum erred in setting aside the penal bill issued to the complainant.

          6.  It is vehemently argued by the counsel for the respondent that the penal bill dated 16/01/2009 issued by the opposite party is illegal that the complainant is not liable to pay the penal amount.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased and installed 2 machines having 1¹/₂ HP and 1 HP prior to one week of the inspection conducted by the opposite party.  It is submitted by the counsel that the complainant applied for the regularization and thereafter the opposite parties inspected the site and issued the bill.  Exbt: P1 the Mahazar prepared by the opposite party shows that the complainant was having 6.908 KW of electricity whereas the bill issued is for 4.980 on the ground that the complainant connected the additional load of 1¹/₂ HP and 1 HP one week prior to the inspection.  The complainant was paying the electricity charges regularly and the bill issued was exorbitant alleging mis-use of energy.  There is clear ambiguity in the bill issued by the opposite parties as the additional load was not proved by the opposite parties.  No explanation is coming forth from the part of opposite parties in fixing the additional load and under such circumstances the bill is to be cancelled.  There is no case for the opposite parties that there is any excess payment towards energy charges to be paid by the complainant. The counsel also relied on the judgment in Writ Petition by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala wherein the penalty has to be limited to the fixed charge portion and there shall not be any penalty by way of proportionate energy charges.  Relying on the said decision the counsel prayed for setting aside the penal bill issued by the appellants.

          7.  Heard both sides in detail and have gone through the documents.  The penal bill issued by the appellants Exbt: P2, is based on the Mahazar Exbt: P1, prepared by the opposite party.  Though the details of the connected load was given as 6908 the additional load of 1.5 HP and 1 HP were connected prior to one week of the inspection has a mention in Exbt: P1.  It is also admitted that no arrear bill is left behind by the complainant.  The bill was issued as on 16/01/2009 as the unauthorized additional load for the fixed charge including interest comes to Rs.4,800/- and the proportionate current charges as penalty comes to Rs.44,070/-.  In the instant case it is clear that there is no due amount to be paid towards energy charges by the complainant.  Considering the judgment by the Hon’ble High Court the appellants are entitled to the penalty which is to be limited to the fixed charge portion only and shall not be any penalty by way of proportionate energy charges.  Hence the liability of the respondent shall only be for the penalty for fixed charge portion.  The appellants shall issue a fresh demand notice based on the above discussion.

          In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the appellants shall issue a revised demand notice for the additional load for the fixed charges to the complainant.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

A. RADHA                     :         MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 SANTHAMMA THOMAS              :        MEMBER

 

 

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.229/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.