BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 121/2003 Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
V. Ponnayyan, Sakthi Oil Mill, Venganinna Puthen Veedu, Nellimoodu – P.O. (A. Gopakumaran Nair)
Opposite parties:
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Vizhingam, Vengannoor – P.O. The Secretary, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(B. Sakthidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KJM 8243 under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam and that the connection was given to the complainant to run an oil mill with a connected load of 10 HP motor under Self Employment Scheme. After one year on 17/09/1993 the connected load was enhanced to 15 HP. The monthly current charge was being assessed under Industrial tariff having two parts - fixed charge and variable charge, hence bills served him were paid by the complainant. After sometime it was understood that the bills of similar consumers of same connected load are charged with less fixed charge. On further enquiry it was understood from the Office of the 1st opposite party that the fixed charge of the bills served to the complainant were for a connected load of more than 20 HP. The complainant had brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party about the excess amount of fixed charge and requested to correct the fixed charge amount by reducing the fixed charge for 15 HP. No additions or alterations of connected load were made in the premises of the complainant. The request to correct the fixed charge was not considered till date. On 17/02/2003 a notice dated 15/02/2003 was served to the complainant, requesting to deposit an additional cash deposit of Rs.12,525/- on or before 27/02/2003 by the 1st opposite party. As per the existing rules, the additional deposit to be remitted by the consumer should be calculated three times of average current charge of previous six months minus the deposits already made earlier by the consumer. The monthly current charge including fixed charge of 15 HP motor is less than Rs.4,000/-. After filing the complaint the connection was dismantled by the opposite parties on 26/09/2006. The opposite parties did not correct the fixed charge to the actual connected load of 15 HP. This complaint is filed to assess the fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor and to refund the amount excessively collected from the complainant by way of monthly current charge illegally treating the connected load as 20 HP instead of 15 HP with 12% annual interest and to realise Rs.2,000/- as cost.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint will not stand either in law or on facts. The connected load was enhanced from 10 HP to 15 HP on 9/2003. Without permission of opposite parties the complainant connected a load of 20 HP to his premises, while the monthly bills served to the complainant were only for fixed charge of 15 HP. Complainant had enjoyed electrical power of 20 HP by paying only for 15 HP. On 1/2000 the Internal Audit party of the KSEB detected the connected load of the premises as 20HP and revised the fixed charge for 20 HP. The complainant was served with a bill for Rs.4,110/- for the short assessment of fixed charges for the period from 12/95 to 11/99. The said bill was remitted by the complainant without any objection. The electrical connection of the premises was disconnected for the period from 8/2001 to 1/2002. On remitting the entire dues the connected load was reconnected. The complainant never approached the opposite parties for reducing the fixed charges. The fixed charges could be reduced only on receipt of an application from the complainant in the prescribed form. It is true that on 17/02/2003 complainant was served with a notice from opposite parties to deposit on additional cash deposit of Rs.12,525/-.Opposite parties did not collect any excess amount from the complainant. On request of the complainant opposite parties dismantled the connection on 25/09/2006. The amount due towards the KSEB was adjusted with the cash deposit. Thus the complainant is estopped from contending that the amount was excessively collected from him. The claim of the refund is barred by limitation. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether the complainant is entitled for assessment of fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor? Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P12 and Commission Report as Ext.C1. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file affidavit but marked Ext.D1 series.
5. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam vide consumer No.KJM 8243, and the connection was provided for running an oil mill under Industrial tariff for a connected load of 10 HP during the year 1992, and on request of the complainant the connected load was enhanced from 10 HP to 15 HP on 9/1993. It has been the case of the complainant that the monthly current charge assessed under Industrial tariff is having two parts – fixed and variable charges, - that fixed charge is assessed on the basis of the connected load of the premises while the variable charge is assessed on the basis of the monthly consumption of energy recorded by energy meter, that even if there is no consumption of energy, the fixed charge based on the connected load is to be paid by the consumer in every month and also under disconnected period and that these technicalities of the two part tariff of industrial consumers were not known to the complainant and hence bills served to him were paid by the complainant. Submission urged by the complainant is that, the bills of similar consumers of the same connected load were charged with less fixed charge than the fixed charge of the bills served to him and later it was understood by the complainant that the fixed charge of the bills served to him were charged with a connected load of more than 20 HP instead of 15 HP and that when the said fact was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and requested to correct the fixed charge amount to the actual connected load of 15 HP motor, it was not responded by opposite parties positively. It has been rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that on request of the complainant on 25/09/2006, the connection was dismantled by the opposite parties on 26/09/2006 and the dues of Rs.1,500/- was adjusted in CD of Rs.1,500/-, and hence the complainant is estopped from contending that the amount was excessively collected from him. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that though complainant was permitted to enhance the connected load from 10 HP to 15 HP, on inspection of the Internal Audit Party of the opposite parties on 18/01/2001, it was found that there was a connected load of 20 HP and accordingly revised the fixed charges for 20 HP. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the complainant was that the Internal Audit party of the Board was not competent to verify the connected load physically in the premises nor were they technical person. Opposite parties produced Ext. D1 series. On a perusal of Ext.D1 series, it is found that short assessment of Rs.4,110/- is seen made in case (16): consumer No.8243, but it does not disclose, the personal officer who has verified the connected load in the said premises. Submission by the complainant is that since the Audit report was not furnished by the opposite parties on time as per the order of this Forum, a petition was filed by the complainant to appoint the Electrical Inspector to inspect the premises and file report, which was allowed and the report was filed by the Electrical Inspector. Ext.C1 is the report of the Electrical Inspector. As per Ext.C1 report, the connected load at the premises of consumer No.KJM 8243 is 15 HP. It is pertinent to note that complainant was permitted to install a motor with capacity 15 HP only as per Ext.P3 order dated 22/09/1993. If the complainant had connected a load (motor) more than 15 HP capacity permitted by the Board, it would definitely attract the unauthorised additional load clause 42(d) of conditions of Electrical Energy, for which, penal charge three times of normal rate would be imposed and service would be disconnected forthwith, without any notice. Further, as submitted by the complainant, the said premises was inspected by Inspection/Vigilance Wing of the Electricity Board at several times and the meter reader in every month to record the consumption and they might have physically verified the connected load with the sanction order, and if found any additional load other than the permitted load, they would have definitely reported the same to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not furnish any such report furnished by the said authority. In view of the foregoing discussion we find, complainant is entitled for assessment of fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor. Next point requiring consideration is whether complainant is entitled for refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties. The allegation raised by the complainant is that from the very beginning (9/93), fixed charge being realised from him is for 20 HP. Narrating this complainant issued letter dated 24/02/2003 to the 1st opposite party by Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgement card. Ext.P4 is the letter from Chief Engineer dated 04/08/1993. As per Ext.P4 the basis for realising the revised security deposit is three times the average current charge during the previous 6 months. Ext.P5 is the notice dated 15/02/2003, to the consumer No.KJM 8243 regarding additional cash deposit relisation of Rs. 12,525/-. Ext.P7 is the interim receipt dated 03/10/2002 for Rs.4,790/- towards current charge from 4/2002 to 8/2002, Ext. P8 is the invoice for Rs.1,011/- towards current charge for 9/2002, Ext. P9 is the invoice of current charge for Rs.4,217/- towards current charge during 10/2002. Ext.P10 is the invoice for Rs.4,712/- during 11/02, Ext.P11 is the invoice for Rs.4,596/- during 12/02. Complainant submitted memo stating that on 11/06/2003 he had remitted Rs.4,000/- as per order dated 23/05/2003. The interim receipt is marked as Ext. P12. It is urged by the counsel appearing for the complainant that opposite parties charged fixed charge for more than 20 HP from 9/93 (the date of installation of 15 HP motor) onwards, and that the fixed charge chargeable for KW and the relation between HP and KW is as follows: Actual connected load = 15 HP One British HP motor = 746 Watts Therefore for 15 HP motor = 746 watts x 15 =11190 watts = 11.19 KW Rounded 12KW As per the present tariff rate per KW = Rs. 45 Therefore fixed charge for 12 KW = Rs.45 x 12=Rs.540
Submission by the complainant is that opposite parties had charged Rs.720/- towards fixed charge, instead of Rs.540/-, and that Rs.720/- is for 16KW which comes for more than 20 HP. Evidently from Ext. P8 to P11 opposite parties had collected Rs.720/- towards fixed charge treating connected load as 20 HP instead of 15 HP. Opposite parties did not deny the mode of calculation. Since complainant had installed 15 HP motor, collection of fixed charge of Rs. 720/- instead of Rs.540/- would amount to deficiency in service. In view of the above we find opposite parties had collected Rs.180/- per month as excess fixed charge, from the complainant from 9/2003 onwards. Complainant submitted that electric connection was dismantled on his request on 25/09/2006 and that no adjustment of excess amount collected as fixed charge against additional cash deposit as per Ext.P5 notice dated 15/02/2003 is necessary. Opposite parties admitted that the connection was dismantled on 26/09/2006 and submission by opposite parties is that complainant is estopped from contending that the amount excessively collected from him and that claim of refund is barred by limitation. Complainant is a layman who is bound to remit the bill issued by opposite parties. On going through Exts. P8 to P11 nowhere in it has mentioned by opposite parties whether fixed charge is for 15 HP motor or 20 HP motor. Submission by the complainant is that it is only at the time of receipt of Ext.P5 notice for additional cash deposit issued by the 1st opposite party and on subsequent enquiry it was understood from the Office of the opposite parties that fixed charge of the bills served to the complainant was for connected load of more than 20 HP and immediately thereafter this complaint was filed. Hence we find that the complaint is not barred by limitation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the excess fixed charge collected at the rate of Rs.180/- per month retrospectively from the date of enhancement of the connected load from 10 HP to 15 HP (that is from 9/93) to the complainant along with 12% interest on the refundable amount. Opposite parties shall also pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.121/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 24/2/2003 issued to the opposite party by the complainant P2 : Acknowledgement card dated 26/2/2003
P3 : Original copy of proceedings of the Asst.Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Poover dated 22/9/1993 to the complainant. P4 : Copy of Endt.on GB-I/Circular/93- 94/649/26.8.93 to the Asst. Exe.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Udiyankulangara from Ex.Engineer, Neyyattinkara.
P5 : Letter No.B B/2002-03 dated 15/2/2003 issued to the complainant. P6 : Copy of Extraordinary Gazette published by Authority-KSEB-notification No.B.O (FM) No.1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002) Tvpm- 24/10/2002
P7 : Interim receipt No.69 dated 3/10/2002 issued by KSEB
P8 : Demand and disconnection notice dated 26/10/2002 of con.No.KJM-8243
P9 : Receipt No.54496 dated 27/11/2002
P10 : " 92385 dated 28/12/2002
P11 : " 60152 dated 28/1/2003 P12 : Interim receipt No.382 dt.11/6/2003
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents :
D1 : Copy of letter dated 25/9/2006 issued by the complainant. Copy of Inspection report of AAO dated 23/1/2001.
Court witness: NIL
Court exhibit:
Ext.C1: Commission report dated 15/6/2005.
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P.No. 121/2003 Dated: 16..02..2009
Complainant:
V. Ponnayyan, Sakthi Oil Mill, Venganinna Puthen Veedu, Nellimoodu – P.O. (A. Gopakumaran Nair)
Opposite parties:
The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Vizhingam, Vengannoor – P.O. The Secretary, KSEB., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-4.
(B. Sakthidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 16..02..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide consumer No.KJM 8243 under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam and that the connection was given to the complainant to run an oil mill with a connected load of 10 HP motor under Self Employment Scheme. After one year on 17/09/1993 the connected load was enhanced to 15 HP. The monthly current charge was being assessed under Industrial tariff having two parts - fixed charge and variable charge, hence bills served him were paid by the complainant. After sometime it was understood that the bills of similar consumers of same connected load are charged with less fixed charge. On further enquiry it was understood from the Office of the 1st opposite party that the fixed charge of the bills served to the complainant were for a connected load of more than 20 HP. The complainant had brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party about the excess amount of fixed charge and requested to correct the fixed charge amount by reducing the fixed charge for 15 HP. No additions or alterations of connected load were made in the premises of the complainant. The request to correct the fixed charge was not considered till date. On 17/02/2003 a notice dated 15/02/2003 was served to the complainant, requesting to deposit an additional cash deposit of Rs.12,525/- on or before 27/02/2003 by the 1st opposite party. As per the existing rules, the additional deposit to be remitted by the consumer should be calculated three times of average current charge of previous six months minus the deposits already made earlier by the consumer. The monthly current charge including fixed charge of 15 HP motor is less than Rs.4,000/-. After filing the complaint the connection was dismantled by the opposite parties on 26/09/2006. The opposite parties did not correct the fixed charge to the actual connected load of 15 HP. This complaint is filed to assess the fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor and to refund the amount excessively collected from the complainant by way of monthly current charge illegally treating the connected load as 20 HP instead of 15 HP with 12% annual interest and to realise Rs.2,000/- as cost.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint will not stand either in law or on facts. The connected load was enhanced from 10 HP to 15 HP on 9/2003. Without permission of opposite parties the complainant connected a load of 20 HP to his premises, while the monthly bills served to the complainant were only for fixed charge of 15 HP. Complainant had enjoyed electrical power of 20 HP by paying only for 15 HP. On 1/2000 the Internal Audit party of the KSEB detected the connected load of the premises as 20HP and revised the fixed charge for 20 HP. The complainant was served with a bill for Rs.4,110/- for the short assessment of fixed charges for the period from 12/95 to 11/99. The said bill was remitted by the complainant without any objection. The electrical connection of the premises was disconnected for the period from 8/2001 to 1/2002. On remitting the entire dues the connected load was reconnected. The complainant never approached the opposite parties for reducing the fixed charges. The fixed charges could be reduced only on receipt of an application from the complainant in the prescribed form. It is true that on 17/02/2003 complainant was served with a notice from opposite parties to deposit on additional cash deposit of Rs.12,525/-.Opposite parties did not collect any excess amount from the complainant. On request of the complainant opposite parties dismantled the connection on 25/09/2006. The amount due towards the KSEB was adjusted with the cash deposit. Thus the complainant is estopped from contending that the amount was excessively collected from him. The claim of the refund is barred by limitation. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are: Whether the complainant is entitled for assessment of fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor? Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties? Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Other Reliefs and Costs?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P12 and Commission Report as Ext.C1. In rebuttal, opposite parties did not file affidavit but marked Ext.D1 series.
5. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties under Electrical Section, Kanjiramkulam vide consumer No.KJM 8243, and the connection was provided for running an oil mill under Industrial tariff for a connected load of 10 HP during the year 1992, and on request of the complainant the connected load was enhanced from 10 HP to 15 HP on 9/1993. It has been the case of the complainant that the monthly current charge assessed under Industrial tariff is having two parts – fixed and variable charges, - that fixed charge is assessed on the basis of the connected load of the premises while the variable charge is assessed on the basis of the monthly consumption of energy recorded by energy meter, that even if there is no consumption of energy, the fixed charge based on the connected load is to be paid by the consumer in every month and also under disconnected period and that these technicalities of the two part tariff of industrial consumers were not known to the complainant and hence bills served to him were paid by the complainant. Submission urged by the complainant is that, the bills of similar consumers of the same connected load were charged with less fixed charge than the fixed charge of the bills served to him and later it was understood by the complainant that the fixed charge of the bills served to him were charged with a connected load of more than 20 HP instead of 15 HP and that when the said fact was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and requested to correct the fixed charge amount to the actual connected load of 15 HP motor, it was not responded by opposite parties positively. It has been rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that on request of the complainant on 25/09/2006, the connection was dismantled by the opposite parties on 26/09/2006 and the dues of Rs.1,500/- was adjusted in CD of Rs.1,500/-, and hence the complainant is estopped from contending that the amount was excessively collected from him. Submission urged by the opposite parties is that though complainant was permitted to enhance the connected load from 10 HP to 15 HP, on inspection of the Internal Audit Party of the opposite parties on 18/01/2001, it was found that there was a connected load of 20 HP and accordingly revised the fixed charges for 20 HP. Main thrust of argument advanced by the counsel appearing for the complainant was that the Internal Audit party of the Board was not competent to verify the connected load physically in the premises nor were they technical person. Opposite parties produced Ext. D1 series. On a perusal of Ext.D1 series, it is found that short assessment of Rs.4,110/- is seen made in case (16): consumer No.8243, but it does not disclose, the personal officer who has verified the connected load in the said premises. Submission by the complainant is that since the Audit report was not furnished by the opposite parties on time as per the order of this Forum, a petition was filed by the complainant to appoint the Electrical Inspector to inspect the premises and file report, which was allowed and the report was filed by the Electrical Inspector. Ext.C1 is the report of the Electrical Inspector. As per Ext.C1 report, the connected load at the premises of consumer No.KJM 8243 is 15 HP. It is pertinent to note that complainant was permitted to install a motor with capacity 15 HP only as per Ext.P3 order dated 22/09/1993. If the complainant had connected a load (motor) more than 15 HP capacity permitted by the Board, it would definitely attract the unauthorised additional load clause 42(d) of conditions of Electrical Energy, for which, penal charge three times of normal rate would be imposed and service would be disconnected forthwith, without any notice. Further, as submitted by the complainant, the said premises was inspected by Inspection/Vigilance Wing of the Electricity Board at several times and the meter reader in every month to record the consumption and they might have physically verified the connected load with the sanction order, and if found any additional load other than the permitted load, they would have definitely reported the same to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not furnish any such report furnished by the said authority. In view of the foregoing discussion we find, complainant is entitled for assessment of fixed charge of current charge for 15 HP motor. Next point requiring consideration is whether complainant is entitled for refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite parties. The allegation raised by the complainant is that from the very beginning (9/93), fixed charge being realised from him is for 20 HP. Narrating this complainant issued letter dated 24/02/2003 to the 1st opposite party by Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgement card. Ext.P4 is the letter from Chief Engineer dated 04/08/1993. As per Ext.P4 the basis for realising the revised security deposit is three times the average current charge during the previous 6 months. Ext.P5 is the notice dated 15/02/2003, to the consumer No.KJM 8243 regarding additional cash deposit relisation of Rs. 12,525/-. Ext.P7 is the interim receipt dated 03/10/2002 for Rs.4,790/- towards current charge from 4/2002 to 8/2002, Ext. P8 is the invoice for Rs.1,011/- towards current charge for 9/2002, Ext. P9 is the invoice of current charge for Rs.4,217/- towards current charge during 10/2002. Ext.P10 is the invoice for Rs.4,712/- during 11/02, Ext.P11 is the invoice for Rs.4,596/- during 12/02. Complainant submitted memo stating that on 11/06/2003 he had remitted Rs.4,000/- as per order dated 23/05/2003. The interim receipt is marked as Ext. P12. It is urged by the counsel appearing for the complainant that opposite parties charged fixed charge for more than 20 HP from 9/93 (the date of installation of 15 HP motor) onwards, and that the fixed charge chargeable for KW and the relation between HP and KW is as follows: Actual connected load = 15 HP One British HP motor = 746 Watts Therefore for 15 HP motor = 746 watts x 15 =11190 watts = 11.19 KW Rounded 12KW As per the present tariff rate per KW = Rs. 45 Therefore fixed charge for 12 KW = Rs.45 x 12=Rs.540
Submission by the complainant is that opposite parties had charged Rs.720/- towards fixed charge, instead of Rs.540/-, and that Rs.720/- is for 16KW which comes for more than 20 HP. Evidently from Ext. P8 to P11 opposite parties had collected Rs.720/- towards fixed charge treating connected load as 20 HP instead of 15 HP. Opposite parties did not deny the mode of calculation. Since complainant had installed 15 HP motor, collection of fixed charge of Rs. 720/- instead of Rs.540/- would amount to deficiency in service. In view of the above we find opposite parties had collected Rs.180/- per month as excess fixed charge, from the complainant from 9/2003 onwards. Complainant submitted that electric connection was dismantled on his request on 25/09/2006 and that no adjustment of excess amount collected as fixed charge against additional cash deposit as per Ext.P5 notice dated 15/02/2003 is necessary. Opposite parties admitted that the connection was dismantled on 26/09/2006 and submission by opposite parties is that complainant is estopped from contending that the amount excessively collected from him and that claim of refund is barred by limitation. Complainant is a layman who is bound to remit the bill issued by opposite parties. On going through Exts. P8 to P11 nowhere in it has mentioned by opposite parties whether fixed charge is for 15 HP motor or 20 HP motor. Submission by the complainant is that it is only at the time of receipt of Ext.P5 notice for additional cash deposit issued by the 1st opposite party and on subsequent enquiry it was understood from the Office of the opposite parties that fixed charge of the bills served to the complainant was for connected load of more than 20 HP and immediately thereafter this complaint was filed. Hence we find that the complaint is not barred by limitation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the excess fixed charge collected at the rate of Rs.180/- per month retrospectively from the date of enhancement of the connected load from 10 HP to 15 HP (that is from 9/93) to the complainant along with 12% interest on the refundable amount. Opposite parties shall also pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16th day of February, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.121/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of letter dated 24/2/2003 issued to the opposite party by the complainant P2 : Acknowledgement card dated 26/2/2003
P3 : Original copy of proceedings of the Asst.Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Poover dated 22/9/1993 to the complainant. P4 : Copy of Endt.on GB-I/Circular/93- 94/649/26.8.93 to the Asst. Exe.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Udiyankulangara from Ex.Engineer, Neyyattinkara.
P5 : Letter No.B B/2002-03 dated 15/2/2003 issued to the complainant. P6 : Copy of Extraordinary Gazette published by Authority-KSEB-notification No.B.O (FM) No.1462/02/TRAC/TO-1/2002) Tvpm- 24/10/2002
P7 : Interim receipt No.69 dated 3/10/2002 issued by KSEB
P8 : Demand and disconnection notice dated 26/10/2002 of con.No.KJM-8243
P9 : Receipt No.54496 dated 27/11/2002
P10 : " 92385 dated 28/12/2002
P11 : " 60152 dated 28/1/2003 P12 : Interim receipt No.382 dt.11/6/2003
Opposite parties' witness : NIL
IV. Opposite parties' documents :
D1 : Copy of letter dated 25/9/2006 issued by the complainant. Copy of Inspection report of AAO dated 23/1/2001.
Court witness: NIL
Court exhibit:
Ext.C1: Commission report dated 15/6/2005.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
