IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No.180/2006(Remanded) (Filed on 10.11.2006)Between: Sri. Jacob Alex, Puthumadathil Ebenezer, Manakkala, Adoor. .... Complainant. (By Adv. G. Johnkutty) And: 1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Office, KSEB, Adoor. 2. Asst. executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Adoor. 3. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. .... Opposite parties. ORDER Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant Sri. Jacob Alex has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from this Forum. 2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having consumer No.1856 Adoor. The complainant received an additional bill of ` 33,750 on 26.08.2005 with a direction to remit the said amount within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said bill, failing which electric connection will be disconnected. The complainant on getting the above said additional bill approached the opposite parties for getting instalment facility for the remittance, which was allowed, by the opposite parties. The final payment was made on 30.11.2005. According to the complainant, the above said additional bill is illegal, arbitrary and against the prevailing law. The opposite parties’ allegation that the complainant had connected an unauthorized extension of 5KW is not true and the connection was taken to the newly constructed building of the complainant in the same survey number very near to the existing electric meter. It is only an additional connected load and hence the penalty imposed is exorbitant, illegal and arbitrary. As per Sub Sections (5) and (6) of Sec.126 of the Electricity Act 2003 (Act 36 of 2003), the maximum penalty that can be imposed is 1½ times applicable to the relevant tariff for a period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of inspection in the case of domestic connection. In the circumstances, he is only liable to pay ` 2,037. Therefore, the complainant prays for an order for the refund of ` 37,713 collected by the opposite parties with cost of ` 2,000. Hence this complaint. 3. The second opposite party has filed version for himself and for and on behalf of other opposite parties with the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite parties admitted the issuance of the additional bill. The said bill was issued on the basis of an inspection conducted by the opposite parties. At the time of inspection, they found an unauthorized extension to a nearby multi-storeyed building constructed in the name of one Annamma Rachel. The said unauthorized extension is against Sec.126 of the Electricity Act and they issued an invoice of ` 33,750 based on the provisions contained in the said section and the bill issued is valid and legal. The act of the complainant is against the Regulation 24 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Hence, the contention of the complainant is baseless and the complaint is baseless and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with their cost and the opposite parties canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked from the side of the complaint on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by him. For the opposite parties, the second opposite party has been examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the second opposite party. After the closure of evidence, both sides heard. 6. On the basis of the evidences and hearing of the parties, the complaint was dismissed by this Forum. 7. Aggrieved by the order of this Forum, the complainant filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram as Appeal No.380/09. The said Appeal was disposed by the Hon’ble CDRC by remanding the matter to this Forum with a direction for fresh consideration and disposal of the same on merits with an observation that the Forum below failed to consider the relevant aspect of the case and the evidences on record in its correct perspective. 8. Subsequent to the remand, both sides appeared before this Forum. On appearance both sides submitted that they have no further evidence. Hence the case was posted for hearing. From the side of the complainant, the complainant’s counsel submitted a statement of account and the opposite parties submitted a detailed argument note. On the basis of the statement of accounts submitted by the complainant’s counsel and the argument note submitted by the opposite parties, both sides were heard elaborately. 9. The main contention raised by the complainant’s counsel is that the new building to which the electric line was extended is not a separate premises and the electricity taken from the old building was used for domestic purpose. So they are liable only to pay the tariff applicable for domestic connection and according to the statement of accounts submitted by the counsel, the complainant is liable to pay only ` 2,037 instead of ` 33,750 as per Ext.A1 penal bill issued by the opposite parties. 10. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the new building where electricity was taken from the old building is not the same premises as defined by the Electricity Act and Rules. As per the provisions of Electricity Act, the purpose for which electricity is using is not material and is not the ground for issuing penal bills. The fundamental basis and the grounds for issuing penal bills is the method adopted by the consumer for the unauthorised use of electricity. Here in this case, the method adopted by the complainant for using electricity is by way of unauthorised extension. According to the opposite parties, as per Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, if unauthorised use of electricity is detected, Electricity Board is entitled to issue penal bills to the offender at a rate equal to 1½ time of the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in Sub Section 5 of Sec.126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant’s unauthorised act i.e. extension of electric line from one premises to another premises, falls under temporary extension and the tariff applicable for temporary extension comes under LT VIII category. So the complainant is liable to pay the tariff applicable to LT VIII. As per LT VIII tariff, fixed charges per day is ` 50 per KW. The opposite parties found unauthorised use of electricity of 5KW in the premises of the complainant and as per the relevant provisions, the complainant is liable to pay 1 ½ times of the fixed charges for 90 days/3 months for the violation of Electricity Act and Rules. So the issuance of Ext.A1 bill for ` 33,750 is legal and they have not committed any deficiency of service or illegal act in issuing Ext.A1 bill. 11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have gone to the entire materials on record with reference to Indian Electricity Act. The relevant portion of Sec.126 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is as follows: 12. Sub Sec.(5): “If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorised use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place”. 13. Sub Sec.(6): The assessment under the section shall be made at a rate equal to 1.5 times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section(5). 14. In this case, parties have no dispute that the complainant has 2 different houses, one is old and the other is new, with separate building numbers. There is also no dispute that power supply in the old house is extended to the new house and the power supply then available is authorised only for the old house. The complainant had no case that opposite parties had given authorisation for extending the power supply from the old building to the new building. So the extension of power supply to the new building is unauthorised and it is a temporary extension and the using of electricity in the building by way of an unauthorised temporary extension is an unauthorised use of electricity. As per the relevant portion of Sec.126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 quoted herein above. The category of service enjoyed by the complainant in the new house is a temporary extension and it is an unauthorised use of electricity for a premise for which supply of electricity is not authorised. As per Sub Sec.5, 6 and explanation (b) and (b)(v) of Sec.126 of Indian Electricity Act 2003, unauthorised use of electricity by way of unauthorised temporary extension in a premise where the use of electricity is not authorised is detected, the Electricity Board is empowered to issue penal bill at the rate equal to 1.5 times of the tariff applicable for temporary extension for a period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of inspection to a consumer ‘who have violated the provisions of electricity law. The tariff applicable for temporary extension is LT VIII. The rate of LT VIII tariff is ` 50 per day for 1 KW. In this case, the opposite parties found the connected load in the complainant’s new house as 5 KW. Based on the connected load and as per the provisions of Electricity Act, the complainant was served with a bill for ` 33,750. The complainant had no dispute against the assessment of the connected load and calculation of the bill amount and he had not used electricity in the new building by drawing electric line from the old building with prior sanction from the opposite parties. The only dispute raised by the complainant is that the tariff applied by the opposite parties is not the proper tariff. According to the complainant, the applicable tariff in this case is domestic tariff as he had used electricity for domestic purpose. But in the light of the provisions of the Electricity Act, the complainant’s contention is not sustainable, as the law for making assessment is not based on the purpose of consumption. But it is based on the means used for using electricity. In this case, the method adopted for is unauthorised temporary extension. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussions, we find no illegality and any deficiency of service from the side of the opposite parties in issuing the impugned bill. In the circumstances, this complaint is not allowable and is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 16th day of August, 2010. (Sd/-) Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant (After remand) : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant (After remand) : Nil. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties (After remand) : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties (After remand) : Nil. (By Order) Senior superintendent Copy to:- (1) Sri. Jacob Alex, Puthumadathil Ebenezer, Manakkala, Adoor. (2) Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Office, KSEB, Adoor. (3) Asst. executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Adoor. (4) Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram. (5) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
