THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 121/2009
Friday, the 30th day of December, 2011.
Petitioner : Saly Mathew,
Kadangathu House,
Kurichi P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. P.C Chacko)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Exe. Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Division,
Changanacherry P.O
3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
KSEB,
Thengana P.O
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.
Case of the petitioner filed on 29..4..2009 is as follows.
Petitioner as self employment is conducting a small scale industry, in the name and style as ‘Honey Hawai’ . Consumer number of the petitioner is 5939. On 10..5..2007 in the business concern of the petitioner their occurred a fatal accident and opposite party disconnected electric connection of petitioner. Petitioner applied to opposite party for re-connection by fixing the connected load of the petitioner as 50 KW . During December 2007 the electric connection to petitioner’s premises was restored on payment of Rs. 50/- as fees. On 16..6..2008 opposite party issued a notice to the petitioner stating that petitioner is in unauthorized use of 12 KW electrical energy. Opposite party also demanded regularization of the connected load. Petitioner applied for load regularization opposite party then regularized connected load and fixed charges of petitioner was reduced from 4815 to 3105. According to the petitioner since opposite party is not recording the details of the fixed charge in the bills petitioner is not able to know about the connected load. On 27..3..2007
-2-
opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 26,716/-. According to the petitioner issuance of the said bill is without any basis and amounts to deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 27..3..2009. Petitioner claims refund of an amount of Rs. 8640/-, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
Opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted fatal accident Dtd: 10..5..2007 and disconnection of the electric supply on 23..12..2007. On 24..12..2007 the electricity was re connected. On 28..6..2003 APTS conducted a surprise inspection and find that actual connected load of the petitioner is 81 KW. APTS detected UAL of 12 KW. Since the application for reconnection is not proper the load was not regularized as per the request. Further more during the time of inspection there is no decrease in connected load and connected load was not at all regularized. Before 16..6..2008 consumer has not taken any steps for regularizing the connected load. On verification of the consumption pattern of the consumer it can be seen that the connected load of petitioner was 81 KW. After the receipt of notice Dtd: 16..6..2008 the connected load was regularized as 69 KW. Consumer can clarify the fixed charge details from the office of the opposite party. As per the internal audit during 11/2008 it was noticed that the unauthorized load FC portion from 7/2008 to 9/2009 is only billed. As per electricity act 2003 section 126 (6) petitioner is liable to remit the proportionate CC portion. Thus the short assessment bill for Rs. 26,716/- is issued to the petitioner. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service 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 affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to
A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the bill issued on 27..3..2009 for Rs. 26,216/- is not legal and proper. According to the opposite party the bill is issued for the proportionate CC for un authorized additional load from 7/07 to 9/08.
-3-
Admittedly a fatal accident occurred in the premises of the petitioner on 10..5..2007 and connection of petitioner was disconnected. On 24..12..2007 the electric connection was restored. According to the opposite party as per the audit conducted by Regional Audit Officer. It was found that the petitioner is penalized for the UAL from 7/07 to 9/08 only for the FC portion. So the disputed Ext. A3 bill is issued for under charged CC portion . Admittedly petitioner remitted the fixed charge portion. On payment of bill for UAL he admitted inspection and unauthorised use of electricity. In Maria Palana Society Vs. KSEB (WPC 12068/09) Hon’le High Court of Kerala upheld that as per sub section (3) of section 45 of the Electricity Act 2003 charges for electricity supplied by distribution licensee may include a fixed charge in addition to the charge for the actual electricity supplied. Since tariff includes both fixed and variable charges. We are of the view that rate is applicable for both fixed and energy charges.
As per section 126 (5) of the electricity act if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that un authorized use of electricity has taken place it shall be presumed that such un authorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of one year immediately preceding the date of inspection, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, or possessor of such premises or place. Here admittedly on 10..5..2007 there was fatal accident and the connection was restored only on 24..12..2007. Opposite party in their counter affidavit admitted that from 10..5..2007 to 24..12..2007 there is no electric supply to the premises of the petitioner. So, from the admitted facts it can be seen that the use of UAL is only probable from 24..12..2007. Because, only after proper inspection of the load on 24..12..2007 reconnection was effected. In our view penalizing the petitioner from 7/07 is not legal and proper. So, issuance of the bill Dtd: 27..3..2009 amounts to deficiency in service. Further more penalization of the petitioner for the fixed charge in calculating the UAL is also not proper. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding point No. 1. Petition is allowed. In the result bill dtd: 27..3..2009 is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue a fresh bill for both CC and FC UAL by penalizing the petitioner from 24..12..2007 to 9/08. Amount if any
-4-
remitted by the petitioner either as bill amount or fixed charge is to be adjusted in the fresh bill. Opposite party is not entitle for any interest or penal charges. Order shall complied with within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner
Ext. A1: Copy of receipt dtd: 13..12..2008
Ext. A2: Copy of notice Dtd: 16..6..2008
Ext. A3: Copy of bill Dtd: 27..3..2009
Ext. A4: Copy of letter Dtd: 7..4..2009 issued by the petitioner to the opposite
party.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1: Copy of the proceedings of electrical inspector Dtd: 12..12..2007
Ext. B2: Copy of meter reading register.
Ext. B3: Copy of calculation details.
Ext. B4: Copy of relevant portion of Audit report of RAO
Ext. B5: Copy of letter No. DB13/03-04/APTS/30-6-2003/124
Ext. B6: Copy of order No. BO(FM) No. 368/2008
(DPCI/C-GI/182/07)Dt:7..2..2008.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
