O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is conducting a toddy shop in Kumarakom Grama Panchayath. Electric connection to the petitioners business concern is availed by first opposite party with vide Consumer No. 13927. Tariff applicable to the petitioner is VII – A. On 9..3 2009 opposite party increased the connected load of the petitioner from 1 KW to 4 KW and fix the current charge of the petitioner as Rs. 7200/-. On 18..3..2009 opposite party issued a penal bill to the petitioner for Rs. 24,560/-. On 8..4..2009 another penal bill for Rs. 31910 was issued by the opposite party. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in issuing penal bills is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction for canceling the bill Dtd: 9..3..2009 and 8..4..2009. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party registered consumer with vide -2- consumer No. 13927 is one Babu V. Thomas. On 9..3..2009 opposite party conducted an inspection in the premises of the petitioner and find an unauthorized additional load of 4 KW. Opposite party issued additional bill for Rs. 24,560/, as per the assessment under section 126 of the Electricity Act. Bill for Rs. 31910/- is issued includes additional bill and the penal bill and normal current charge for bimonthly consumption. According to the opposite party 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 the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents and the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 document on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner admits the site inspection conducted by the opposite party on 9..3..2009. Opposite party produced the copy of the letter issued by the petitioner to the Asst. Engineer, Kumarakom. Said document is marked as Ext. B1. As per Ext. B1 petitioner admits the un authorized additional load of 3 KW. Further he stated that he removed the additional connected load and the petitioner requested for exonerating him from penalization. Since admittedly there is un authorized additional load opposite party has every right to issue penal bill to the opposite party as per section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. -3- Hence, we cannot attribute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the additional bill. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of September, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 9..3..2009 Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 30..4..2009 Ext. A3: Bill Dtd: 4..3..2009 Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of the letter issued by the petitioner to the A.E Kumarakom Dtd: 21..12..2009 Ext. B2: Application form for the connection Dtd: 231..12..2001. By Order
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
