CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 111/2009
Thursday, the 20th day of June , 2012.
Petitioner : Baiju M.D
Baiju Bhavan,
Vazhappally P.O
Changanacherry
Proprietor,
Karimpinkala Toddy Shop and
Family Restaurant, Pallom,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. Avaneesh V.M)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O. Tvm.
2) The Asst. Engineer,
Electrical Section
Pallom P.O, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 8..4..2009 is as follows.
Petitioner is conducting a family restaurant and Toddy shop at Pallom, Kottayam. On 3..4..2009 a notice was served to the petitioner directing him to pay an amount of Rs. 4,29,954/- to opposite party. In the bill it is stated that petitioner is in use of un authorized load of 16 KW. According to petitioner the bill issued to the petitioner is not legal and proper. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite party to withdraw the bill Dtd: 23..3..2009. Petitioner claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of proceedings.
Opposite party filed version contenting that the petitioner is not a consumer. On 17..1..2008 the Division Squad Pallim, inspected the
-2-
premises of the petitioner and detected un authorized load of 16 KW . The petitioner remitted the amount on 20..2..2009. The tariff involves both fixed charge and energy charge. Since the energy portion was not included in the bill Dtd: 21..1..2008 this portion was charged in the bill dtd: 23..3..2009. According to opposite party bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper. There is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations 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 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of opposite parties.
Point No. 1
Counsel for petitioner taken a contention that bill issued to him is not under section 126 of the Electricity Act because, there is no un authorized use of electricity. In our view the said contention of the petitioner is not sustainable because as per the explanation to section 126. It is stated that ‘un authorized use of electricity’ means usage of electricity by means not authorized by the authority. It is pertinent to note that the un authorized use of electricity is ment by the legislature as use of electricity not authorized by the licensee. So, the said argument of the petitioner will not sustain.
-3-
Disputed bill Dtd: 16..4..2009 is produced and same is marked as Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is bill issued by the opposite party as penalty for the un authorized current charge portion. The electricity regulatory commission on 19..1..2010 in the matter of Kerala State Industrial Association Vs. KSEB had given direction to the opposite party in respect of assessment of energy charges. In the said order it was stated that the assessment as per the provision should be after taking the average for the period of detection of the un authorized connected load and for the period after the detection of the un authorized connected load and then impose penalty for that part of energy with respect to the un authorized connected load. As per Ext. A1 bill opposite party have taken the energy charges for total consumption of the assessed period and collected the amount with respect to the un authorized load. In view of the fact that the order of regulatory commission has not been challenged by the opposite party. We find that the order of regulatory commission is applicable in the present matter also. Since the assessment with respect to fixed charge is remitted by the petitioner we do not call it for interference.
Admittedly disputed bill is issued as per the Board order Dtd: 7..2..2008. So, during the issuance of the first bill Dtd: 21..1..2008 petitioner was not assessed for the energy charge portion. There is some act of deficiency in not penalizing the petitioner for the un authorized energy charge portion during the period of issuance of first bill. So, for the act of deficiency, opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-4-
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1. Bill Dtd: 23..3..2009 is cancelled. Opposite party is directed to issue a fresh order with respect to the energy charges of the petitioner by re-calculating the bill amount applying the method prescribed by the regulatory commission in its order dtd: 19..1..2010. Opposite party is directed to adjust the compensation amount in the disputed bill amount. Order shall be complied with within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of June, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents of the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of bill Dtd: 23..3..2009
Ext. A2: Letter Dtd: 2..4..2009 issued by the A.E to the petitioner.
Documents of the opposite party
Ext. B1: Mahazar Dtd: 17..1..2008
Ext. B2: Copy of complaint Dtd: 29..1..2008
Ext. B3: Copy op complaint to the Exe. Engineer given by the petitioner.
Ext. B4: Notice issued by the opposite party to the petitioner
Ext. B5: Application for regularization given by the petitioner to the
opposite party.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
