CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
CC No.340/09
Tuesday the 15th day of March, 2011
Petitioner : Adv. T. Joseph,
Chairman,
Rural Development Centre,
Kuravilangadu, Kottayam.
(Adv. R. Anilkumar)
Vs.
Opposite party : Secretary,
K.S.E.B., Vydhuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) Asst.Executive Engineer,
K.S.E.B., Major Section,
Kuravilangadu.
(Adv. Sheeja S. Raju)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
The complainant’s case is as follows:-
The complainant is the Chairman of Rural Development Centre. The said charitable organization is having two electric connections bearing nos. 7764, 10906. In the aforesaid nos. a ladies hostel, by the said charitable organization is functioning. The monthly bills are being paid without any default. Due to the enimity of some officials of KSEB towards the complainant, the second opposite party issued a bill for Rs.27,098/-. The said connection is having no electricity charge arrears, but it was wrongfully stated in the bill that there existed arrears amounting to Rs. 25,918/-. The complainant alleged that the mahazar was falsely prepared. The complainant further alleged that on 18-09-09, a lineman came for meter inspection and under the instigation of the said lineman; two staffs of the complainant had put signatures as proof for meter inspection. Even though one of the staff was made to write as “Read the mahazar and received the copy” and signed it, no copy was served to the complainant. No such inspection or preparation of mahazar based on that occurred on the said day. No additional load is being used by the complainant’s institution. According to the complainant, the issuance of such an illegal bill is due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming the cancellation of bill no. 7774, compensation Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost.
The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.
i) The opposite parties never been in personal enmity with the complainant and the averment that a bill for Rs.27, 098/- has been issued out of previous enmity is false.
ii) On 18-09-09, a surprise inspection was conducted by the authorized office Under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and it is found that Consumer No.7764 has an unauthorized load of 7KW and a mahazer was prepared and copy of the same was handed over to the employees present. The consumer No.7764 is having only an authorized load of 4 KW. A penal bill for Rs.27,098/- was issued provisionally on 23-9-09 along with a letter stating actual facts and the person authorized by the complainant received the said bill.
iii) The bill for Rs.27,098/- was issued as a penal bill not as arrears.
iv) The complainant had preferred a complaint with the same relief vide CC No.290/09 before this Forum and this Forum closed the complaint with a direction to approach the assessing officer for filing objection. The complainant has not availed the said opportunity and filed this complaint.
v) The averment that the mahazaar was prepared falsely is not true. The mahazer was prepared in the presence of two employees of the complainant and there after a copy was duly served upon him also. The averment that under the instigation of lineman, two staffs of the complainant had put signatures as proof for meter inspection is totally false. The staff put the signature after verifying its contents and if otherwise it should have found place in the earlier complaint.
vi) There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs to them.
Points for consideration are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs
Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A7 and B1 to B4.
Point No.1
The opposite parties produced the copy of the site mahazar dtd 18-09-09 prepared after inspection conducted in the premises bearing consumer no.7764 and it is marked as Ext.B1. The opposite parties averred that the actual connected load allotted to consumer No.7764 is only 4KW ie 4000 Watts. As per Ext.B1, mahazar the connected load found on inspection is 10,488 Watts and the load details are also clearly mentioned in the said mahazar. From Ext.B1, it is clear that the unauthorized connected load is 6488 Watts. Where as the complainant contented that the site mahazar is a fabricated one and that the allegation of detection of unauthorized connected load of 6,488 watts is false. In our view there is no reason to disbelieve the site mahazar which is prepared by a KSEB officer and signed by four staffs of the complainant.
If an unauthorized load is found, as per Section 126(5), (6) of Electricity Amendment Act 2007 an assessment at the rate equal to two times the tariff applicable for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection must be imposed. In our view the assessment made as per Section 126(5), (6) is correct. Hence we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the opposite parties part. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is ordered as follows.
The complaint is dismissed. Taking a lenient view we direct the opposite parties to collect the balance amount avoiding penal charge in three equal monthly installments. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation ordered. Both sides will bear their costs.
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the complainant
Ext.A1- not produced
Ext.A2-copy of provisional bill dated 22-09-09
Ext.A3-not produced
Ext.A4-not produced
Ext.A5-not produced
Ext.A6-Copy of complaint against provisional bill
Ext.A7-Copy of the complaint
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-copy of site mahazar
Ext.B2-Copy of calculation by opposite parties
Ext.B3-Copy of letter dtd 22-9-09 issued by OPs to the complainant.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
