O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner, filed on 24..3..2009 is as follows: Petitioner as a means of his livelihood is conducting a business concern by name Eros Oil Mills (P) Ltd. The business was run by father of the petitioner and upon his death continued by the petitioner. For business purpose petitioner has two electrical connections viz No. 8772 and 2794 under the second opposite party. Both the meter boards are placed in the hall of Unit No. 8772 on the eastern wall and the other on the western wall. . Business concern is under Lt IV tariff. Consumer connection No. 2794 has an authorized connected load of 75 KW and Consumer No. 8772 with a load of 23 KW. Disparity in authorized loads creates some problems in the running of the unit. So -2- the connection with consumer No. 8772 has been re-arranged from Consumer No. 2794 by not changing the total authorized load. On 18..7..2008 APTS squad inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that one phase of the three phase connection of No. 8772 is not showing correct voltage. The reason according to the squad is loss of contact of one phase because of oxidization of insulated copper wire. Subsequently on 10..7..2008 petitioner was served with a communication and bill for Rs. 92,284/- computing penalties imposed and current charges calculated for defects in one phase of consumer for Rs. 15,615.50/-. Petitioner as CC 191/08 filed a petition before CDRF, Kottayam. Forum remanded the petition to the opposite party with a direction to afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to be heard and to pass final order. Petitioner was heard on 20..2..2009 second opposite party confirmed the earlier bill amount. Agreed petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of the bill. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in disposing the matter with a cryptic order is a clear deficiency in service. So, the petitioner prays for a direction for quashing the final order and re fixing the quantum of amount payable by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law. He prays for cost and compensation. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer as defined in section 2(d) (ii) of Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party contented that there are 2 electric connections with consumer No. 8772 and 2794 in the premises of the petitioner. Consumer 8772 is in the name of Shomy George and consumer No. 2794 belongs to Varkey Kuriakose both are industrial connections. According to the opposite party the -3- averment of the petitioner that there is no change in authorized connected load is false. Even though both are on the same building both belongs to different consumers. Petitioner has violated rule and unauthorizedly interfered with the installation without informing the opposite party. So, the load is unauthorized load. So, penal bill was issued as per rules. Opposite party contented that meter reading was taken every month and the meter reader notes only the reading. According to the opposite party bills are issued legal and there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with there costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? ii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner produced the final order passed by Asst. Engineer, Electric section, Vaikom. Order produced is marked as Ext. A4 and the disputed bill produced is marked as Ext. A5. Petitioner challenged Ext. A4 order on the ground that it is a cryptic order. According to the petitioner taking four months aggregate for calculating current charge is baseless. Because every month meter reading was taken and if at all there was any blinking in ‘R’ phase. Definitely it will be in the knowledge of the meter reader. So, according to him he is only liable to pay only the current charge of one month. -4- According to opposite party meter reader notes only meter reading and he is not inspecting or testing the consumer electrical installation. In our view the stand taken by the opposite party is not acceptable. Furthermore opposite party has not explained why they back assessed for 4months for blinking in one phase. In our view assessment for 4 months without any solid evidence is not legal. So, the short assessment for non recording in ‘R’ phase is to be limited to one month. In Ext. A4 petitioner is penalized for unauthorized additional load of 15 KW. According to the petitioner there is no unauthorized load of 15 KW and complainant has made rearrangement within the authorized load. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that opposite party has not said to have sustained any loss of revenue because of re-arrangement. According to opposite party the assessment of proportionate current charge assessment for Rs. 61,168/- is totally baseless. Petitioner’s counsel argued that S-126 (6) is attracted only when there is loss of electricity charges consequent to unauthorized use . He further argued that when there is a specific penalty provided for unauthorized connected load vide regulation 50(5) and (6) of “KSEB terms and conditions of supply 2005” there cannot be an additional penalty unless there is abstraction of electricity. We are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable because S-126 (6) (b) defines “unauthorized use of electricity as usage of electricity: i) by any artificial means ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee or -5- iii) through a tampered meter or iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized. Here. Admittedly the complainant violated the rules and regulations and unauthorizedly interfered with the installations and rearranged the connected load of two different consumers, though both connections were effected in the same building. In our view petitioner had used electricity by a means not authorized by the board that is against law and terms and condition. So, we find no deficiency in issuing penal bill for additional load. No deduction in normal current charge collected is done that has also to be deducted. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed in part. Bill for Rs. 92,284/- Dtd: 10..7..2008 is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue a revised bill to the petitioner charging short recorded unit limited to one months and also penalty for unauthorized load for 15 KWs. If the normal current charge is not deducted that has to be deducted. Considering facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. 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 25th day of May, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- -6- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner: Ext. A : True copy of the Mahazar Ext. A2: True copy of the communication Dtd: 10..7..2008 Ext. A3: Order in CC 191/08 of CDRF Kottayam. Ext. A4: Proceedings of A.E, Vaikom. Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 18..3..2009 Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Copy of G.O Dtd: 17..2..2008. By Order, Senior Superintendent.
| | , | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
