THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No. 35/2009 Thursday, the 21st day of January, 2010. Petitioner : Scariah Punnoose, Pappalayil House, Eravinalloor Kara, Puthuppally Village, Vs. Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan Pattom, Trivandrum Reptd. By its Secretary. 2) The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Puthuppally. 3) The Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Division, Pallom. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of first opposite party with vide consumer No. 6982. Petitioner is conducting SSI Unit by taking electricity connection from the first opposite party. According to the petitioner he is solely depend upon the income from the aforesaid SSI Unit for his livelihood by means of self employment. On 30..9..2008 APTS squad visited the premises of the petitioner and alleged that the petitioner is unauthorized by using 21 KW and more electricity than the allotted capacity. According to the petitioner allegation was purely based on the oral enquiry from the machine operator. Opposite party subsequently issued a provisional bill for Rs. 57,982/- and -2- penalty was served on 17..10..2008. Petitioner on 29..10..2008 requested second opposite party to reconsider the bill amount on the considering use of newly erected chopper machine from the month of June, 2008 onwards. An amount of Rs. 22444/- has been remitted by the petitioner. Second opposite party as per request of the petitioner, inspected the premises and found that the chopper machine was 20 HP capacity. As per proceedings of the second opposite party they issued a revised bill for Rs. 44,118/-. According to the petitioner said bill is issued without any legal basis and the act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to cancel the bill Dtd: 11..1..2009 demanding Rs. 44,118/-.. Petitioner also claims Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party petitioner is conducting a commercial establishment. So he is not a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Opposite party contented that the connected load allotted to the petitioner is 41 KW. On 30..9..2008 APTS visited the premises of consumer and found 21 KW additional connected load and the bill was issued for an amount of Rs. 57,982/-. Opposite party contented that the averment of the petitioner in his petition with regard to the installation of the chopper machine and its capacity are not true. On 31..12..2008 second opposite party visited the premises of the petitioner and find that capacity of the chopper machine is 20 HP instead of 30 HP . Further more, purchase bill and errection bill were not reliable . So, revised bill is issued to the petitioner legally and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs. -3- 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 A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 Opposite party produced copy of mahazar prepared by the opposite party on 30..9..2008, in the presence of the petitioner, said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the additional connected load in the premises of the petitioner is 15 KW or else the capacity of the chopper machine is 20 HP instead of 30 HP. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in contra to the mahazar prepared by the opposite party to prove his case. Even though the petitioner has a definite case that he purchased the chopper machine as per bill Dtd: 2..5..2008 and was erected on 25..5..2008. But the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove the bonafides of the bill purchased by examining manufacturer of the chopper machine from whom he purchase the same. So, in our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing revised bill on 13..1..2009. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is dismissed and petitioner is not entitled for relief sought for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost -4- and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of January, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 13..1..2009 Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 15..1..2009 Ext. A3: Copy of bill of Chopper machine Dtd: 2..5..2009 Ext. A4: Photo copy of the bill Dtd: 25..5..2008 Ext. A5: Final order, passed by the assessing officer. Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of mahazar Ext. B2: Copy of the bill Dtd: 13..1..2009 Ext. B3: Copy of the meter reading register Ext. B4: Copy of the meter reading register. By Order, Senior Superintendent. amp/ 6 cs.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
