Date of filing: 20-03-2009

                                                                                                            Date of order:07-12-2009

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC. No. 94/09

                        Dated this, the 7^th   day   of December   2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                        : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI             : MEMBER

M/s. K.N.H. Hospital,

Rep.by its Managing Partner,

Dr.K.P. Holla, Railway Station Road,                        }  Complainant

Uppala.Po, Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv. K.M.Ballakuraya, Kasaragod)

1. Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section,

    K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

2. Sub Engineer, Electrical Section,                      } Opposite parties

    K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

3. Asst.Executive Engineer,

    K.S.E.B, Uppala, Po.Uppala

(Adv. P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)

                                                            O R D E R

 SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            This complaint depicts one of the grossest deficient nature of service rendered by Kerala State Electricity Board to it’s consumer.     

            Facts of the complaint.

            The complainant obtained electric connection to the X-ray unit of the hospital in the year 1973.  The approved connected load to the said unit was 5000 Watts (5 Kilowatts).  Till January 2007 the opposite parties used to collect Rs.550/- towards the fixed charges in every bill. But in bill dated 6-2-07 the complainant was demanded to pay Rs.5940/- towards fixed charge alone.  Though the complainant approached opposite parties and told them that they are not liable to remit the said amount, but  they were asked to pay the bill to avoid disconnection.  Thereafter in the bills issued during the subsequent bi-months also complainant was asked to pay the fixed charges on a higher rate that was not actually due.  According to the complainant, the bills were issued under a wrong impression that the connected load of the X-ray unit is 17000 watts.  The complainant has not received any order from any officer of the Board assessing the connected load or informing that the connected load is in excess of the approved connected load.  The demand of fixed charges calculating the connected load at 17000 watts is illegal and improper. The objections raised against the issue of bills were went on vain.  The acts of the opposite parties have caused mental agony and pain to the complainant.  Hence the complaint for appropriate reliefs.            

            II. Version of opposite parties

2.         That approved connected load to the premises of the consumer was 5 Kilowatts.  But the complainant was abstracting power more than the connected load provided.  On inspection, the Board had detected unauthorized additional load of  12 Kilowatt more than the sanctioned load.  The consumer was directed to regularize the additional load. The complainant has neither regularized the unauthorized connected load nor removed the same till date.  The complainant paid  the fixed charges for the unauthorized load  without protest.  No complaints or objections  were filed by the complainant stating that there is no additional load.  The payment of bills from January 2007 onwards is an admission that there is additional load.  The bills were raised as per rules.  Hence opposite parties are not liable to refund the fixed charges collected from the complainant.  The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

3.         III. Evidence

            The evidence in this case consists of the affidavit of the complainant and Exts A1 to A12.  On the side of opposite parties no evidence is adduced and no documents also produced

 4.       IV. The points considered

1.      Whether the complainant had connected additional unauthorized load to his X-ray unit so as to attract penal liability as contended by opposite parties?

2.      Is there any deficiency -in-service on the part of opposite parties?

3.      Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

         For the sake of brevity all the points are considered together

 5.        No evidence is adduced by opposite parties to substantiate the contention that the complainant had connected unauthorized additional load of 12 KW to the X-ray unit attached to the hospital.  It is the case of opposite parties that on inspection at the premises of the complainant’s firm they had detected unauthorized additional load of 12 KW.  But to prove this allegation as per the procedure they should have prepared a site mahazar that contains the descriptions of the equipments alleged to be connected as additional load.  But no site mahazar is prepared and produced to prove this aspect.  Moreover, the bi-monthly consumption itself shows that the X-ray unit is using very little power say 1 or 2 units bi-monthly.  Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have a case that the meter is not working properly.  Had it been so if the consumer was using unauthorized additional load of 12 KW then it should have reflected in the consumption pattern and meter readings.  Therefore it is clear that the allegations raised by the opposite parties regarding the surplus unauthorized load is a created story to justify their deficient service.  The fact that the complainant paid all the bills is not an admission of  installation of unauthorized load.  A consumer who fearing disconnection of electric connection will  definitely pay the bills even though he feels aggrieved in the figure shown in the bill.  The unjustifiable demand of fixed charge considerably at a rate of 5 times higher than that of the actual dues would certainly cause hardships to every consumer.  The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the same.

6.         It is seen that from 2/07 onwards  including the bill dated 15-01-09 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.33,110/- towards the fixed charges alone  as against the actual dues of Rs.6,600/- if the fixed charge is reckoned as Rs.550/- per month.  Moreover, the complainant would have paid the subsequent bills also at such increased rate.  Definitely he is entitled to get the refund of the said amounts also.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.26,510/- the amount they illegally extracted from the complainant with interest @12% per annum  from the date of complaint till payment along with the excess amount collected after the bill dated 15-01-09 with interest @ 12% from the date of collection till payment. The future bills of the complainant shall be revised assessing the actual connected load.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.3500/- towards the cost of these proceedings.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy order.      

     Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1 to A12 Bills issued by opposite parties.

      Sd/-                                                         Sd/-                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                               PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT