THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.197/2009 Thursday, the 29th day of April, 2010 Petitioner : Satheesh Babu, Kavya Books, Temple Road, Padinjarenada, Ettumanoor P.O. Vs. Opposite party : 1) Asst. Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Ettumanoor. 2) The Secretary, KSEB, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner leased out a room belongs to one Beena Sreekumar for conducting STD Booth and sale of castes. The said building is situated in front of the Ettumanoor Mahadeva Temple. Electric connection to the room is taken from the first opposite party. According to the petitioner he had paid entire bills issued by the opposite party up to March 2007. In every year during the month of January to March the number of devotees to the Mahadeva Temple is high . . In March there is 10 days Ultasav in the Mahadeva Temple. So, according to the petitioner there is an increase in consumption in electrical energy during month of January to March on every year. Petitioner on 24..2..2009 hired a fridge, juicer and power socket from M/s. Airtech Company, for an amount of Rs. 2250/-, as rent for 10 days. On 25..2..2009 opposite party conducted an inspection at the premises of the shop of the petitioner and prepared a mahazar. On 16..3..2009 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 5,231/- petitioner paid the entire bill amount. On 28..5..2009 opposite party issued revised bill for Rs. 18,349/-. Petitioner approached opposite party for cancellation the bill Dtd: 28..5..2009. But opposite party has not heed to the demands of the petitioner. -2- According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing additional bill Dtd: 28..5..2009 is without any basis and is liable to be cancelled. Petitioner claims compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer of the KSE Board and is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act because connection is taken for commercial purpose. Opposite party contented that consumer No. 16185 has a sanctioned connected load of 1000 watts and is billed under LT VII B Tariff. Consumer has not availed any additional sanction for use of additional load at any time. On inspection conducted on 25..2..2009 it was found that an unauthorized additional load has been used by the petitioner. Hence penal bill under section 126 of Indian Electricity Act was issued to the petitioner for mis use of energy. Consumer was also served with a letter stating that unauthorized load should be removed or regularized consumer has not paid the bill or filed objection against the professional assessment bill Dtd: 7..3..2009 . On 25..3..2009 consumer was given opportunity for hearing. On 28..5..2009 a final revised bill for Rs. 18,349/- was issued. According to the opposite party bill is issued as per law and there is no deficiency in service on their part. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for considerations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents and on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point no. 1 Petitioner produced disputed bill Dtd 28..5..2009 for an amount of Rs. 18,349/- said document is marked as Ext. A4. From Ext. A4 it can be seen that it is a penal bill for un authorized additional load. According to the opposite party Ext. A1 bill is issued as per the proceedings of Assistant Engineer proceeding produced is marked as Ext. B5. In Ext. B5 the assessing officer on the basis of the statement, documents and by local -3- enquiry found that it is the normal practice of many of the vendors in the temple premises explore the business by additional sales. On verification of consumption pattern it is found that energy consumption of January to March 2008 and are higher than other month of the year. From the version it can be seen that assessment is for a period from 3/08 to 1/09. Section 126 (5) states that if assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized electricity has taken place it shall be presumed that such un authorizes use of electricity was continuing for the period of six months immediately preceeding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agriculture service and for a period of one year for all other categories of services unless the onus is rebutted by the person occupier or possessor of such place. So, as per 126(5) if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if he is not at all aware of the date from which it was continuing then only he presume that such unauthorized use was continuing for one year immediately preceeding date of inspection. From Ext. B5 it can be seen that the assessing office come to the conclusion that unauthorized use was during the period of January and March. . Opposite party produced meter reading register of the consumer and said document is marked as Ext. B2. From Ext. B2 it can be seen that the energy consumption of the consumer in January and March 2009 is much higher than other by month reading. So, we are of the opinion that there is no scope for the assessing officer for going into presumption with regard to the unauthorized use of electricity for a period of one year before the inspection . In our view assessing the petitioner penal t from 3/08 to 1/09 is not legal. So, in our view issuance of the Ext. A4bill is not legal and proper. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed. In the result Ext. A4 bill Dtd: 28..5..2009 for an amount of Rs. 18349/- is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill on the basis of the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place during the month of January to March 2009 and revised penal bill assessing -4- the amount for 3 months is to be given to the petitioner. The amount deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted in the revised bill. Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of this order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of April, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Ext. A1: Letter issued by the proprietor Air tech Ext. A2: Bill Dtd:16..3..2009 Ext. A3: Bill Dtd: 15..5..2009 Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 28..5..2009 Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of cash deposit register. Ext. B2: Copy of meter reading register Ext. B3: Copy of site mahazar. Ext. B4: Copy of professional bill Ext. B5: Copy of proceedings of the Asst. Engineer. Ext. B6: Copy of final bill. By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/ 5 cs.
| | , | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
