Sri.K.GOPALAN . PRESIDENT<br /> This is a petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to cancel penal bills issued to him and after adjustment to pay balance amount Rs 2568 with 24% interest, to exclude the interest amount Rs 283/- shown in the bill of June 2003 and Rs 299/- show in the bill of July 2003, to give reconnection of electrical energy and to pay RS 50,000/- as compensaton.<br /> <br /> The complainant’s case in brief are as follows. The complainant is the consumer of KSEB with consumer No.4286. The electric connection is taken for his small scale industry Mangala Bakery . Because of some difficulties the running of Bakery stopped right from 1999. Even then minimum charges were remitted continuously. The meter reading were not taken till September 2001. When the opposite party took reading in the month of October 2001 it was shown 923 units. Electricity was used since complainant was staying over there for the security of the building. After taking meter reading on October 2001 a bil for an amount of Rs 5762 was issued to the complainant. Even if complainant has got protest he has remitted the amount. The bill was calculated at the rate of Rs 5.40 per unit. Thereafter reading was taken every month and the amount paid at the rate of Rs 3.15 per unit. The bill issued on the month of May 2003 covering the period from September 2001 to September 2002 demanded to pay an amount of Rs 14,155/-. On enquiry with the office of the first opposite party it was explained the reason that it is because the current that is taken for industrial purpose is used for hotel business. No notice was given with respect to the change of tariff to the complainant at the time when Rs 5762 was paid . The complainant had n ot conducted any trade and not used electricity for any trade purpose. So the complainant did not pay the excess bill. If the opposite party has any such case of misuse of energy notice should have been given to the complainant before issuing the bill on different tariff not applicable to the complainant. But no notice was issued to complainant and no such Mahazar prepared. Double charge was not realized from the complainant for the consumption of power after the month of September 2002. If the power had been used for different purpose of business this excess charge should have been realized from the complainant even after September 2002. This makes it clear that the allegationof opposite party is baseless. The one side decision is not legally sustainable. The complainant is not liable to remit the excess bill. The power has been disconnected illegally. The complainant lodged complaint before the Hon: Chief Minister and Hon: Electricity Minister etc.. Then the complainant was directed to submit complaint before Deputy Chief Engineer , Electrical Circle, Kannur. Officials were also given direction to take necessary steps. The complainant submitted application on 24.12.2004 before the Deputy Chief Engineer. He was asked to deposit Rs 3500/- so as to consider his application and to give power connection. At the time of considering the appeal first opposite party was directed to give the complainant power connection .But conection was not given. Appeal was decided on 10.2.2005 accepting some of the contentions of complainant. As per the order the charge realized from the complainant at the rate of Rs 5.40 is found wrong since the average consumption stands below 80 units. Hence it was directed to realize the amount only at the rate of Rs 2.45 and accordingly to revise the penal bills and to issue new bill adjusting the amount paid and deposited and further balance to adjust in future bill amounts.<br /> After the appeal first opposite party issued a bill to complainant on 3.3.2005 but it was not based on the direction of the appeal. It was directed to realize the charge only at the rate of Rs 2.45 per unit for the period of September 2001 to September 2002. But the bill for that period upon which complainant paid Rs 5762/- was not revised. The bill for Rs 5762 was calculated @ Rs 5.40 instead of Rs 2.45. It was not directed to issue bill at 3 times the rate. While considering appeal first opposite party was directed to give connection which has not been yet given. In the bill apart from 923 units another 388 units @ Rs 3.15 was also added. The actual consumption unit was only 301. 923 units were calculated adding with the units consumed for the month of October 2001 also. The next bill starts only with the consumption of the month of November onwards. The fixed charge of the complainant was Rs 180 but after October 2001 it is Rs 270/- which includes also an additional fixed charge of Rs 90 that has been charging from the complainant. It is adding additional fixed charge issued on the basis that power has been used for the purpose of commercial purpose. Additional fixed charge cannot be released from the complainant since he has never conducted business nor consumed the power . The opposite party has received an excess amount ofRs 1980 at the rate of Rs 90/- for 22 months for the period from October 2001 to July 2003 till effecting disconnection. On January 2002 the opposite party unauthorisedly charged Rs 128/- that includes Rs 11.60 as 10% duty apart from the fixed charge and additional fixed charge in the bill issued without taking average reading. The opposite party is liable to return this.So also opposite party is liable to return RS 187.30 which has been unauthorisedly charged in the bill of March 2003. In the bill of June 2003 it has been shown Rs 283( 24% interest) Rs 299/-( 24% interest as per the bill of July 2003). The complainant is not liable to paythe amount Rs 283/- and Rs 299/- in the item of 24% interest . The name of the complainant is P. Chandran and his consumer No. is 4286. But for the last few months the bill is issued to the same consumer in the name of P. Ramachandran renaming the complainant. Hence the complainant suspects that opposite party has mistakenly charging the complainant instead of charging someone else. The complainant was forced to pay excess amount because of the fault committed by the opposite parties. The actual amount complainant liable to pay is only Rs 8988.95. The amount paid by the complainant is Rs 11,557.30. Thus the opposite parties are liable to return Rs 2568.35 with 24% interest to complainant. The opposite party disconnected the power for no fault of complainant and denying reconnection purposefully even if there is direction to give connection in the order of the appeal by the Deputy Chief Engineer. The complainant is not able to revive the industrial unit due to the negative attitude of the opposite party. The loss sustained by the complainant cannot assess in terms of money. The complainant praysfor a nominal amount of loss of Rs 50,000/- . After disposal of the appeal on 3.3.2005 the first opposite party issued a bill without any basis ignoring the direction given in the order in the appeal. The complainant has issued notice to opposite party for issuing correct bill in accordance with the direction of the order. But reply says only falsehood and hence this complaint.<br /> The opposite party filed version denying the case of complainant . The opposite parties contention in brief are as follows: The complainant is a consumer under KSEB with consumer No.4286 on industrial priority basis. This electric connection consists of one energy meter for power load and another energy meter for lighting load being an industrial service connection. The industrial unit Mangala Bakery is not functioning since 1999. Since the industry is not functioning the room where energy meters are installed always locked. Sothe meter reading was not available for a long period. On 5.10.2001 when Sub Engineer in charge of this are went to nearby premises for taking meter reading the room was found open and meter reading of consumer No.4286 was taken. The opposite party contended that the light meter showed energy consumption of 923 units.On thorough checking it was found that electricity is looped with PVC cable to nearby hotel, which are attached to the building premises of the consumer No.4286, with a connected load of one Mixi, IX Bow bulbs, IX Bow fan and so the matter was reported to the billing branchof KSEB. The consumer was also instructed to avoid such looping of electricity. Considering the energy consumption of the consumer is for commercial purpose, LT VIIB Tariff rate was charged @ Rs 5.40 which is the rate if the consumption is above 100 units per month. For LT VII B Tariff and the consumer is served the bill for Rs 5762/- on 15.10.2001. In the bill it was clearly specified that the bill assessed in LT VII B tariff. The consumer remitted the amount without any protest, as he is well aware of using energy for commercial purpose. On 19.2.2003 the Regional Audit Officer , KSEB, Kannur audited the books and directed the opposite party that as per prevailing rate, three times fixed energy charges as well as consent charges is to be charged on an unauthorized misuse of Electricity. As the rate was existing up to 9/2002, the penalty bill for the period from 9/2001 to 9/2002 was issued to the complainant on 15.5.2003 for Rs 13,654/- along with the current month’s bill for Rs 501/- thereby a bill of total Rs 14,155 was issued on 15.5.2003. The complainant did not raise any protest against the bill for succeeding 8 months. After 18 months ie ; on 23.11.2004 the complainant had first filed a petition before the Hon: Chief Minister of Kerala at his Mass Contact Program held at Kannur. The complainant is well aware of using energy for commercial purpose, he has not raised any protest even though he is served with current charge bills showing unauthorized additional load fixed charges and current charges in LT VII B Tariff. The reason for not penalizing the current charge from 10/02 onwards is as per Board Order No.FR No.1292/02, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 18.9.2002 in which the penalization for additional load in the energy portion is terminated and hence the argument of the petitioner to that effect is baseless. Since the consumer failed to remit the above bill for Rs 14,151 and monthly bill from 5/03 , the service connection of consumer No.4286 was disconnected . On 23.11.2004 after 16 months petitioner had filed a petition before the Hon: Chief Minsiter of Kerala regarding the penal bill issued on complainant. Upon this petition,the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Section, Kannur directed the comlplainant to remit Rs 3500 and suggested to attend in Vyduthi Adalath. Hence the petitioner remitted Rs 3500/-. A personal hearing on this subject was conducted by the Deputy Chief Engineer at Electrical Circle Office, Kannur. The Deputy Chief Engineer by his order directed to revise the above peal bill with a unit rate of Rs 2.45 assuring that commercial consumption related to a period longer than 9 months. So that average monthly consumption might be less than 100 units. As per the direction the penal bill issued in 5/2003 is revised from Rs 14155 to 7664 and issued a notice to the consumer on 3.3.05. An amount of Rs 3500 was remitted by the consumer is also deducted from the penal bill amount of Rs 7764 as per the direction of the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer. The complainant has to remit the first instalment of the revised penal bill and the upto date current bill for reconnecting the electrical connection of consumer No.4286as per rate. The opposite party revised the bill strictly obeying all the direction of the Deputy Chief Engineers order in the Adalath. The Deputy Chief Engineer did not issue any direction to revise the bill for Rs 5762/- already remitted by the complainant. The complainant has never raised claim to revise the bill for Rs 5762/- until he sent a lawyer notice. As per the existing rules in KSEB , Rs 90/- is to be charged as additional fixed charge for unauthorized additional load of 1 K.Vto a VII B premises. The consumer has looped electricity unauthorisedly, so that Rs 90/- charged in the monthly bill as per rules. Since the complainant himself locked the room where electrical meter was installed, the staff under the opposite party could not take meter readingin January 2002. The average consumption of 37 units was included in the monthly bill and 37 units were thus deducted from the time when meter reading is available. An amount of Rs 283/- is included in the monthly bill from 6/2003 to 12/2003 was related to the prevailing bill under complaint. So the surcharge amount of Rs 283 is excluded from each bill including the arrear.But the surcharge of fixed charges and meter rent couldnot be excluded from the bill . The consumer No.4286 is P.Chandran. The monthly bills have been issued in the name of P.Ramachandran in accordance with the personal request made by the complainant. The amount calculated by the petitioner is not in accordance with the rules and regulations exists in the Board. KSEB has already informed the complainant that only after remitting the reconnection fee , test fee, instalment of revised penal bill and utpo date monthly bills, electric connection would be reconnected. But the complainant is not amenable. On getting the above revised penal bill complainant sent a notice <br /> through the Counsel to this opposite party alleging non compliance of the decision arrived in the adalath . This opposite party replied to the notice stating true state of affairs. The opposite party also submits that now the Deputy Chief Engineer has ordered to revise the bill dates 15.10.2001 for Rs 5762/- @ Rs 2.45 per unit and to give credit for the balance amount by adjusting the amount in the future bills. So if the complainant is agreeable to the proposal, the opposite party is ready to issue the revised bill as per the direction issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer. This opposite party has acted strictly in accordance with the Electricity Act and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A15 and oral testimony of DW1.<br /> ISSUES 1 to 3<br /> Admittedly the complainant is a consumer of KSEB having industrial service connection No.4286 . A bill for Rs 5762 for 923 units was served to complainant on 15.10.2001 for the period of 9/01 to 9/02 at the rate of Rs 5.40 per unit with electricity duty @ 10% and also interest for belated payment @ 24%. The opposite party considered the energy consumption of the complainant consumed is for commercial purpose and the bill assessed LT VII B tariff rate. The opposite party contended that complainant remitted the amount without any protest. The complainant’s case is that he has remitted the amount with protest. The Industrial Unit Mangala Bakery for which energy connection is taken has not been functioning since 1999 is also an admitted fact. If so, the contention of the opposite party that meter reading was not available for a long period can be believed. On 5.10.2001 Sub Engineer in charge has taken the meter reading . But the previous date of reading was not disclosed. The complainant pleaded that even after closing the bakery he used to pay minimum charge . That was not denied by the opposite party. The Deputy Chief Engineer of Electrical Section has observed on the basis of verification of the meter reading register and available reading for the period 9/99 to 9/02 the average consumption never exceeded 80 units in the light meter. The complainant is a consumer effected under industrial tariff LT IV but he was served Ext. A1 bill of Rs 5762/- @ Rs 5/40 on the basis of LT VII B tariff. It is not revealed under what provision the tariff is changed, without giving notice to consumer. Ext. A4 is the next bill issued to the complainant and Exts. A6, A8 and A9 are subsequent bills issued at the rate of Rs 3.75 per unit . This means the tariff again changed . These subsequent bills shows only lesser rate of charge. There has not been any explanation for the change of rate of charge. Thereafter only penal bill for Rs 14155 issued . Irregularity is seen right from issuing the bill Ext.A1. The main allegation of opposite party isthat the complainant himself misused the electrical connection . Opposite parties case is that they have conducted genuine probe in that aspect and found that the electricity is looped to nearby hotel conducted by a third party. This incident that stands as a crux of the entire case. But the opposite party did not take interest to adduce evidence on this aspect to prove the allegation of opposite parties. Mere pleading will not help the Forum to jump into such a conclusion. Sufficient evidence is not available before the Forum to come into a conclusion that the consumer has committed such a misuse In other words opposite parties are not able to succeed to prove the allegation that the complainant has committed such <br /> Offence of looping and thereby misusing the energy. There is much relevany and weight for observation made by the Deputy Chief Engineerin arriving at a conclusion . On reviewing the averments of party, statement of officials, inspection report, details of consumer, rules and regulations in force etc the Deputy Chief Engineer observed that in verification of the meter reading register and available reading for the period 9/99 to 9/02 it can be seen that the average consumption per month never exceeded 80 units in the light meter. Hence the penal bill issued in VII B at higher rate of Rs 5.40 per unit is against natural justice and rules in force and hence liable to be revised at the rate of Rs 2.45 per unit. It is also ordered( Ext. A10) to Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Darmasala to issue a revised penal bill as ordered above, taking into consideration the amount already remitted by the consumer . In the same order sanction is also accorded to cancel the previous penal bill issued. The order passed on 10.2.2005. <br /> The opposite parties were not taken proper steps to implement the order in its true spirit .Again on 31.5.2005 an order issued (Ext. A15)by Deputy Chief Engineer to revise the penal bill issued in respect of the consumer , complainant for the period 9/2001 to 9/2002 at the rate of Rs 2.45 per unit instead of Rs 5.40 per unit. It was also ordered to revise the penal bill dated 15.10.2001 of Rs 5762 issued by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Darmasala to the rate of Rs 2.45 per unit. Exts. A10 and A5 made it clear that penal bills are unjustifiable and against natural justice and it is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. In the light of the evidence it is seen that the disconnection of electrical energy cannot be justified and opposite parties are liable to give reconnection without any sorts of charge. Thus we are of opinion that the opposite parties are liable to cancel all the penal bills issued to complainant and to revise the entire bill disputed by the complainant @ Rs 2.45 . The excess amount paid should be adjusted to the future bills. In the light of above facts the disconnecton of electrical energy cannotbe justified at all.Hence we hold that the complainant is entitled to get reconnection of disconnected electrical energy without realsing any charge on that account. The comlplainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs 500 as cost of this proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 are answered partly in favour of the complainant. <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties <br /> (1) to cancel all the penal bills issued against complainant and to revise the entire bills disputed by the complainant @ Rs 2.45 per unit. The excess amount paid should be adjusted to future bills<br /> (2) to exclude the payment of interest amount Rs 283 shown in the bill of June 2003 and Rs 299 shown in the bill of July 2003<br /> (3) to reconnect the electrical connection of consumer No.4286 without realizing any charge <br /> (4) to pay a sum of Rs 500 as cost of this proceedings.<br /> The order should be comlplied within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/- PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Bill dt. 15.10.2001 issued by the opposite party<br /> A2.Photo copy of the receipt dt. 29.10.2001l<br /> A3. Bill dated 15.5.2003 issued by the opposite party<br /> A4. Bill dated 15.1.2002 issued by the opposite party<br /> A5. Receipt dt. 25.1.2002.<br /> A6. Bill dated 15.3.2003 issued by the opposite party<br /> A7. Receipt dt. 24.3.2003.<br /> A8. Bill dated 16.6.2003 issued by the opposite party<br /> A9. Bill dated 15.7.2003 issued by the opposite party<br /> A10. Order dt. 10.2.2005 of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kannur<br /> A11. Revised penal bill for 5/2003 .<br /> A12 (a) to A12 (c): Copy of the lawyer notice dt. 7.3.2005 sent to opposite party. Postal receipt and acknowledgement card.<br /> A13. Letter dt. 11.3.2005 sent by the opposite party.<br /> A14. Receipt dt.7.1.2005 issued by the oppositeparty<br /> A15. Order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kannur dt. 31.5.2005<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party - Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party<br /> DW1. N. Saseendran.<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br />