KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL 

     COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                                              APPEAL  NO: 275/2009

                              JUDGMENT DATED:18..05..2010

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA                                      : MEMBER

1.Asst. Engineer, KSEB,

  Electrical Section, Nedumkandam,

  Chembalam.P.O, Nedumkandam,

  PIN-685 553.

2.C.Panneerselvam, Sub Engineer,

  KSEB, Electrical Section,

  Chembalam.P.O, Nedumkandam,

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

3.Asst. Ex. Engineer, KSEB,

  Electrical Major Section,

  Kattappana.

4.The Secretary, KSEB,

  Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom.P.O,

  TVPM.

(By Adv:Sri.S.Balachandran)

            Vs.

Antony, S/o Varghese,

Paranthodu House, Ramakkal Mettu.P.O,

Balan Pillai City, Kallur – 685 552,                                  : RESPONDENT

Idukki.

                                                JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC:30/2008 in the file of CDRF, Idukki.  The appellants are under orders to cancel Ext.P2 bill for Rs.11,095/- and is under direction to reconnect the agricultural connection.  The appellants are also permitted to issue fresh invoice by accounting the true and correct electrical energy consumed and also to pay cost of Rs.1000/-.

2. The case of the complainant is that he availed the agricultural connection vide consumer No:6605 in January 2005 for irrigating his agricultural land.  According to him the highest meter reading for the last 3 years is 1298 only.  It is alleged that on 4/2/08 the Sub Engineer inspected the premises and has disconnected the supply.  On an earlier occasion also the same Sub Engineer had disconnected the connection.  On 9/2/2008 he received demand notice for Rs.11,095/- directing to remit the amount within 21/02/2008 failing which the connection will be disconnected.  The connection was already disconnected on 4/2/2008.  The alleged witnesses to the site mehazar did not witness inspection by the sub engineer.  The complainant is pumping water in the tanker lorries by using diesel motor and supplying water to several construction works in the area.  It is alleged that the Sub engineer and others had asked for bribe.

3. The opposite parties had filed version that on a surprise inspection on 4/2/2008 it was found that the complainant was filling water in a tank placed in a lorry using electrical connection.  The complainant who was selling water for consideration.  The same amounted to violation of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and amounted to misuse of energy.  The site mehazar was prepared which was signed by available witnesses.  The penal bill was issued as per law.  The tariff was changed from LT 5 to LT 7 A. It is also pointed out that complainant was found using a large quantity of after during rainy season also.  It is not required for agriculturists.

4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 to PW3, DW1, Exts.P1 to P8 and R1 and R2.

5. The Forum allowed the complaint on the ground that Ext.P6 and P7 copies of the complaints filed by the complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer would indicate that there was enmity between the complainant and the Sub Inspector concerned who was examined as DW1.   It is also noted that as per Ext.P2 demand notice no specific meter readings of 12 months is mentioned and has also assessed 2KW as unauthorized additional load for each for 12 months.

6. We find that DW1 the Sub Engineer who prepared Ext.R2 site mehazar has proved the same.  As pointed out by the counsel for the appellant it is seen that Ext.P5 and P6 complaints are dated subsequent to the date of site mehazar inspection ie 4/2/2008.  Hence P5 and P6 cannot be treated as genuine.  Ext.R1 meter reading register extract mentions the readings from 3/06 to 3/08.  Of course Ext.P2 demand notice also contains unauthorized 2 KW.  We find that the opposite parties have no such case of unauthorized additional load.  Hence the above amount of Rs.2,400/- ordered to be paid is liable to be set aside.  The balance would work out Rs.8694/-.  The same has been collected at the rate of Rs.8.05. the rate for commercial tariff for units consumed for the past one year at two times as per the provisions of the Conditions of Supply.  We find that the complainant himself has admitted that he is engaged in the business of selling water to construction sites.  But according to him he was using only diesel motor.  The contention of the opposite party that during monsoon period he has consumed more energy stands proved from Ext.R1 meter reading register extract.  The above factors would indicate that the complainant was using electrical energy supplied for agricultural purposes for the purpose of drawing water and selling the same.  In the circumstances we find that the penal bill excluding the amount for the unauthorized additional load mentioned is liable to be sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part.  Order of the Forum is set aside.  The complainant would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,694/- as penal charges towards misuse of electrical energy.  The appeal is allowed in part.

Office is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently along with LCR.

JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

VL.