KERALA STATE CONSUMENR DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.1056/04 JUDGMENT DATED.11.07.08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.The Secretary, K.S.E.Board, Vydhuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, K.S.E.Board, Electrical Section, Adimali (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs Alice Sebastian, Mampuzhackal House, 200 Acre, Mannmkandam.P.O., : RESPONDENT Adimali, Idukki. JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated.12.10.04 in OP.No.96/04 of the CDRF, Idukki wherein and whereby the appellants/opposite parties are under directions to cancel the bill issued on 6.4.04 and issue fresh bill relating to the claim @ Rs.50/- per month for 6 months. 2. The case of the complainant before the forum was that she was a consumer of the opposite parties bearing Consumer No.2347 of the Adimali Electrical Section which is provided in the name of the husband of the complainant. As a new house was constructed by her husband in the nearby premises and as the connection was not given to that premises, she had taken the connection from Consumer No.2347 to the new house for light purpose only and the consumption was less than 10 units during the billing period. On 5.4.04 the second opposite party disconnected the power supply and issued a bill for Rs.27,000/-. Alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill and to restore the supply that was disconnected on 5.4.04. 3. The opposite parties filed version through the second opposite party in which it was contended that the complainant had unauthorizedly connected power supply to the new building and it was on detection of such unauthorized connection that the service was disconnected on 6.4.04, after preparing a mahazar and issuing disconnection notice to the complainant. The bill for Rs.27,000/- was given under section 42 (d) of the conditions of the supply of the electrical energy and also as per order No.FB.1292/2002 dated.18.9.02 of the K.S.E.Board. The opposite parties submitted that there was no deficiency of service in issuing the bill which was liable to be paid by the complainant and hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We heard the counsel for the appellant who submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version as well as grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the complainant had misused the energy given to the house of the complainant by unauthorizedly connecting electricity to the new building and hence the appellants/opposite parties have every right to charge and issue bill under rule 42 (d) of the conditions of the supply. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the forum had gone wrong in finding that the only enabling provision is to charge @Rs.50/- per KW per month for 6 months. It is also his case that forum ought to have found that there was no deficiency in service and as such he argued that the appeal is to be allowed thereby dismissing the complaint. 5. On an appreciation of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and on going through the facts of the case we find that the complainant had admitted that she had taken connection from Consumer No.2347 to the new house though it is stated that it was under compelling circumstances that the connection was taken to the new house and as she had paid the necessary charges for getting connection. We find that it was not proper on the part of the complainant to take connection without the knowledge or consent of the opposite parties even under compelling circumstances as the law does not permit for such an action. It is to be noted that the complainant ought to have obtained permission from the opposite parties for temporarily connection to the new building. However, issuing a bill for Rs.27,000/- seems to be legal and against natural justice. It is to be found that clause 42(d) is silent about such connection to a new house even though the complainant would say that she had remitted the required fees for getting connection to the new house. The appellants/opposite parties have no case that the complainant had exceeded the contracted load in her premises or had used energy for some other purposes other than the purpose that was envisaged in the contract for supply of electrical energy. In such a circumstance the issue of bill under section 42(d) cannot be supported by us. The forum has also observed that the maximum penalty that can be imposed by the opposite parties is that the complainant can be issued a bill at 3 times @ Rs.50/- per KW per month for a period of 6 months. However, the forum has ordered only the realization @ Rs.50/- per month for 6 months. This calculation is wrong as the complainant has taken connection illegally and for that the complainant has to pay some penal charges. In our view the complainant is liable to pay at 3 times @ Rs.50/- per month for 6 months. In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order dated.12.10.04 in OP.No.96/04 of CDRF, Idukki thereby directing the opposite parties to claim and issue a bill at 3 times @ Rs.50/- per month for 6 months. In the nature and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANANTHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
