By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is running a Studio having consumer No. 455 of electricity connection. The connection to the concern has been in LT 4 tariff, the stipulation that are required for electricity connection are well maintained by the Complainant. Power meter and light meter are separate and the equipment to which the supply is given are strictly complying to the directions and norms. More over the Complainant has been a regular payee of the electricity bills. While so the Complainant request the Opposite Party to convert the single phase connection to three phase to meet the requirements of the extra energy. The Complainant remitted the extra amount after wiring and the test report was also given. The Opposite Party inspected and towards the additional load extra amount was also paid by the Complainant at the time of inspection and therefore even in the surprise inspection of Anti Power Theft Squad nothing wrong with the connection was seen and no intimation of any irregularity was found out.
2. On 02.12.2009 a surprise inspection was done by the Sub Engineer in Mananthavady Section and prepared a mahazar. The connected load estimated by the Sub Engineer is absolutely wrong and mahazar prepared was also fully wrong. In pursuance of inspection the Complainant was given a bill dated 30.12.2009 No.047925 for Rs.21,242/-.
3. The Complainant filed a petition before the Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Mananthavady to review the amount demanded by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party instead of considering the request of the Complainant issued an another bill No.206730 dated 15.01.2010. The Complainant was in use of power not more than the sanctioned load. The wiring and connected load are one and the same as avered in the test report. The Opposite Party should have directed to rectify if anything wrong had done in the wiring or connected load. The connected load and other wiring pattern mentioned in the test report after converting the single phase connection to the three phase is approved and supply was given. The Opposite Party is issuance of the bill for exorbitant amount is born out from personal hatred to this complaint.
4. There may be an order declaring the bill No.206730 dated 15.1.2010 and bill dated 30.12.2009 No.047925 in consumer No.455 are illegal and there by the Complainant is not liable to pay the amount. The Opposite Parties may be directed not to disconnect the service connection to consumer No.455 and also be directed to accept a proportionate amount of subsequent bimonthly bills of consumer No.455 along with cost and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
5. Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The electricity connection in consumer No.455 given to the Complainant is for industrial purpose in LT4 tariff. The connection industrial purpose would be provided with separate meters for lighting load and power load. The light consumption in excess of 5% of bulk energy consumption for power shall be charged at 50 paise per kilowatt over and above the specified rate. The segregation of power if not carried out the entire charges (fixed and energy charge) shall be increased by 50% the LT industrial consumers are required to induct static capacitors, ISI approved power factoring improvement for inductual load promotion of the licencee is also necessary. The Complainant is a regular payee of electricity bills and paid CD and ACD. The assertion of the Complainant that at the time of conversion of single phase connection to 3 phase no irregularity was detected is incorrect APTS had not inspected the premises during last 3 years.
6. On inspection of the Sub Engineer, Electric Section, Mananthavady in the premises of the consumer it was detected that some lights are connected to the power circuit and meter of the power meter is charged at a lessor rate. 1HP Motors is installed without static capacitor. A detailed mahazar was prepared on inspection and was handed over to the consumer. At the time of preparing the mahazar the consumer had no difference or any dispute regarding the position of the connected load. The things which were found mainly in the inspection was that some light loads were connected with the power circuit and required static capacitor was also not installed. The improper segregation of light and power circuit and absence of static capacitor was assessed as per the provisions of Electricity Act. The bill demanding Rs.21,242/- served to the Complainant on 30.12.2009 is on right side. The Complainant was not demanded any penal charges. The demanded amount was absolutely compensatory to the charges taken for a period of 12 months preceding the date of inspection. The bill dated 15.01.2010 issued to the consumer is required monthly bill and the amount shown is inclusive of the arrear amount. The allegation of the Complainant is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed with cost.
7. Points in consideration are:-
Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
8. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 to A5 and C1 are the documents. The oral testimony of the Complainant is also considered in this case.
9. The contention of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant's Studio which was provided with three phase electricity connection has not under taken the segregation of power installing power meter and light meter. Apart from that ISI approved static capacitors are not installed by the consumer. In the personal evidence of the Complainant it is deposed that he has been enjoying the supply of electricity for the last 45 years. During that time the studio was having single phase connection. 10 years back the single phase connection was converted to 3 phase connection to meet the energy requirements. At the time of converting single phase to 3 phase test report was given and the additional charge towards the connected load was remitted by the Complainant. The supply of electricity in three phase connection was only upon inspection of the Assistant Engineer and extra charges for the additional load was also remitted. According to the Complainant after conversion of the single phase connection to 3 phase inspections were held by Anti Power Theft Squad and other authorised officials but no irregularities were noted. Ext.A2 is the disputed bill dated 30.12.2009. The consumer was demanded to remit Rs.21,242/- that includes 70% of the penal charges for non segregation of light meter and capacitors. On verification of Ext.A3 letter from Assistant Engineer KSEB, Mananthavady it is seen that the consumer was levied Rs.45/- per KW for a period of 12 months and the 70% of it comes Rs.6,426/- the energy charge is Rs.13,660/- inclusive of duty Rs.1,156/-, Rs. 21,242/- is demanded from the Complainant.
10. The Complainant's premises was inspected by the Expert Commissioner, Electrical Inspector Wayanad District and the report filed is Ext.C1. The report details that two meters are installed in the Studio one is for power and other is for light. The connected load of light circuit is 3426 Watts and power circuit is 14240 Watts. According to the Complainant the supply of electricity was based on the test report and no variation in the wiring and other connected load were done by the Complainant. In the commission report also no visible alterations were done in the connections. The Opposite Party was demanded to produced the test report but it was not produced by the Opposite Party for reason that the test report in respect of the consumer No.445 Mananthavady is not available with them at present. The demand of the Opposite Party for penal charges was under the notification of Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 27.11.2007. The clarification in LT4 industrial clause (b) reads:-
“If ISI approved static capacitors are not install by such consumers to
compensate inductive load of air conditioners, 25% extra shall be
charged on the total fixed charge the inclusive of entire connected load”.
11. According to the Opposite Party the disputed bill amount is levied from the Complainant is under section 126 of Electricity Act. The section reads the Assessing Officer come to the conclusion that such person is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity is shall provisionally assess the best of the judgment the electricity charges payable by such person. The penal charge in this case is assessed for the period of 12 months as per clause 126 (5) of Electricity Act 2003. Regarding the explanation clause of unauthorised use of electricity it reads (1) The usage of electricity (2) By means not authorised by a concerned person or authorised or licencee or (3) Through tampered meter (4) For the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorised or (5) For the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorised.
12. The Assessing Officer in this case ascertained the use of electricity unauthorised and it is counted for a period of 12 months preceding the date of inspection since the period of usage of electricity cannot be ascertained. The consumption of electricity by the Complainant in strict sense cannot be counted unauthorised as explained in section 126 of Electricity Act.
13. It is admitted by the Complainant that static capacitors of ISI approved are not installed to the power factor it is also seen in the report of the Expert Commissioner.
14. On examination of the Opposite Party it is also admitted that the Complainant was the regular payee of electricity bills in the relevant period the premises are inspected by Anti Power Theft Squad. The Complainant was demanded the amount by the way of disputed bill according to the regulations notified by the Kerala State Electricity Regulation. How ever the bill amount demanded from the Complainant is not reasonable and against provisions.
15. In the absence of ISI approved static capacitors the consumer has to pay 25% of extra charge on the total fixed charge inclusive of entire connected load as per the regulations of 2007. Ext.A2 bill dated 30.12.2009 to the consumer No.455 is against reasons and hence quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue the Complainant a fresh bill for a period of 12 months at the rate of Rs.45/- per kilowatt for the total connected load of 17 KW and the Complainant shall be imposed 25% extra charge to the total fixed charge inclusive of entire connected load. The Complainant had remitted Rs.5,000/- towards the disputed bill dated 30.12.2009 this amount is to be considered as the amount remitted towards the bill that would be given subsequently.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The bill dated 30.12.2009 of consumer No.455 is quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue the Complainant a fresh bill at a penal charge of 25% extra on the total fixed charge inclusively of entire connected load for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. There is no order as to cost and compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31st January 2011.
Date of filing:25.01.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Jose Madukkayil Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Sivarajan Asst. Executive Engineer.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1 Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:02.12.2009.
A2. Copy of Bill. dt:30.12.2009.
A3. Copy of Letter. dt:31.12.2009.
A4. Copy of Letter. dt:08.01.2010.
A5. Copy of Bill. dt:15.01.2010.
C1. Commission Report.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
