By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Facts in brief:-<br /> It is the say of complainant that he is the consumer under opposite party for electricity supply to the flour mill conducted by him for his livelihood by self employment. Opposite party issued a penal bill dated, 14-8-2002 for Rs.20,520/- alleged to be issued after conducting inspection of premises. Complainant is not aware of any such inspection and the bill is based upon fabricated documents. The bill is issued alleging that complainant has used unauthorised additional load from the mill to his house which is false. His house is not near to the flour mill. Further the tariff to flour mill for industrial purpose is higher than the tariff of his house which is for domestic purpose. So normally no one would draw such an extension. That complainant had filed an appeal before the Tirur Executive Engineer challenging the said bill which was dismissed on 05-9-2002. Complainant further filed a revision which was also dismissed on 07-11-2003. Complainant remitted rs.6,900/- towards the penal bill and his connection was restored. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint praying to cancel the bill for Rs.20,520/-, to refund the amount of rs.6,900/- with interest @ 18% and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with costs of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version admitting the complainant to be a consumer for electricity supply. It is submitted that on inspection of the premises it was found that complainant had been using energy unauthorisedly very cunningly after making sure that both light and power meters were not functioning. Complainant was present at the time of inspection and a mahazar was also prepared. Complainant refused to sign the mahazar of accept copy of it. Complainant has used the connection of industrial purpose for domestic purpose which is against the stipulation of service agreement and amounts to violation of clause 42 of the Conditions of Supply. That complainant had preferred appeal challenging the bill before the Executive Engineer and was dismissed on 31-12-2002 after detailed hearing. Thereafter complainant preferred revision which was also dismissed. During the proceedings complainant requested for conduct of local enquiry which was allowed. Thereby a local enquiry was conducted and taking into consideration of all details the revision was disposed of on 31-4-2002 against the complainant. A review was filed by the complainant which was also dismissed. Complainant has paid 30% of the penal bill and the recovery of balance has been stayed by the Forum as per interim orders in IA-230/03 dated, 20-11-2003. The grievance of the complainant has been already adjudicated in the appeal and revision petitions filed by complainant. The bill issued is proper and legal. Complainant is liable to pay the same. <br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his behalf. Counter affidavit filed by opposite party. Exts.B1 to B5 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> <br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of penal bill for Rs.20,520/-. This bill is issued to the electrical connection availed by him for industrial purpose. According to opposite party on inspection of the premises of the flour mill it was found that the power meter and light meter of the flour mill were not functioning. It is the case of opposite party that taking advantage of non-functioning of these meters complainant had drawn unauthrosied additional load to his house which is nearby. Opposite party relies upon Ext.B1. It is stated that complainant has taken energy to his house by drawing a phase wire from the outgoing terminal of the main switch of the power connection of the flour mill and by the incoming service wire of the meter after removing it's insulation. It is further stated that on inspection of inside the house it was found that both these wires were connected to a 5A plug. From this plug complainant was using one tube, one fan and two bulbs by using plastic wires. Further by using plastic wires supply was tapped into a board fitted with 5 pluggs. That supply was seen drawn from this board to a ½ H.P. motor near the well of the house. Thus according to opposite party complainant knowing very well that the power meter and light meter of the flour mill was not functioning and not recording consumption had drawn unauthorised extension from the supply of the flour mill to his house.<br /> <br /> 6. Complainant denies the factum of inspection itself. He alleges that the penal bill is prepared basing upon fabricated documents. Complainant contends that he did not receive any notice of inspection and has not received copy of the mahazar. The contention that complainant did not receive any notice of inspection is only to be disregarded in view of clause 28 in Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of Kerala State Electricity Board. In clause 28 it is stated that the authorised employees of the Board are entitled by statute at all reasonable times to enter upon the premises for the purpose of inspection. In Ext.B1 mahazar opposite party has noted that the owner of the flour mill was present at the time of inspection and has refused to sign the mahazar. Ext.B1 being a document prepared by a public officer as part of his official duty has to be presumed to be genuine. The definite case of opposite party is that complainant was using the supply of flour mill to his house by drawing unauthorised extension and keeping the meters of the flour mill non-functional. Complainant has no case that the meters of flour mill were recording actual consumption of energy or that they were not stuck. He has not come forward with the consumption pattern of his supply of the flour mill and that of his house prior to and after the inspection. He has not taken any steps to prove that his house is not nearby so as to make it impossible to take such an extension. The burden rests upon the complainant to prove that the bill is issued without proper basis. There is no averment in the complaint or in the affidavit regarding the particulars of current consumption prior to the inspection. We are therefore able to conclude that complainant has taken unauthorised extension from his flour mill to his house which amounts to misuse of energy.<br /> 7. The counsel for complainant argued that since the tariff for industrial purpose (flour mill) is higher than the tariff for domestic purpose (house) the penalty under 42(d) will not be attracted. We are unable to agree with this argument. Clause 42 of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of Kerala State Electricity Board provides for misuse of energy. Clause 42(c) reads as under:<br /> “The consumer shall not make such use of the supply given to him by the Board as to act prejudicially to the Board in any manner whatsoever.”<br /> <br /> 8. The act of the complainant definitely falls under 42(c) and amounts to misuse of energy. Further complainant has taken additional load to his house by drawing unauthorised extension and has thus exceeded the contracted load without prior permission of the Board. This attracts clause 42(d) also. Clause 42(d) states that the misuse will be billed at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuse. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any impropriety in the penalty imposed by opposite party. Complainant has failed to establish a case in his favour. The bill issued is proper and legal. Complainant is liable to pay the balance towards the disputed bill. We find opposite party not deficient in service.<br /> <br /> 9. In the result we dismiss the complaint. Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 14th day of October, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Demand and Disconnection notice dated, 14-8-02 issued by<br /> opposite party to consumer No.5922<br /> Ext.A2 : Disconnection notice dated, 11-11-03 issued by opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Letter dated, 7-11-03 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B5<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Suite mahazar dated, 27-7-02 prepared by<br /> K.V. Prabhakaran, Sub Engineer, KSEB., Tanur. <br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the appeal petition dated, 05-9-02 from complainant <br /> to opposite party.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Order dated, 31-12-02 from opposite party to<br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the Order dated, 31-4-03 from opposite party to<br /> complainant.<br /> Ext.B5 : Photo copy of the Notice dated, 07-11-03 from opposite party to<br /> complainant.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER