By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President<br /> <br /> Petitioner’s case is as follows:<br /> <br /> Petitioner is a consumer of respondents vide No.9767 and the connection is for domestic purposes. There is no arrears of charges. On 22/6/06 the respondents inspected the petitioner’s premises and a site mahazar was prepared and a penalty bill dated 26/6/06 was issued. The bill is illegal and baseless. It was alleged in the mahazar that electricity is using for conducting telephone booth and it is unauthorized consumption. But the telephone booth is conducting by Anamika Trust by taking a room by rent from the petitioner. The ice cream parlour, stated in the petition has another consumer number and the tariff is VIIB. If the penalty instalment is not remitted the supply will be disconnected by the respondent. Hence this complaint.<br /> <br /> The Counter in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. The Consumer No.9576 is domestic purpose only. On 2006 June 22nd the concerned building was inspected and it was found that electricity is unauthorisedly using for conducting telephone booth and ice cream parlour. The connected load allotted to the consumer is 1000 watts only, but he is using 680 watts more and it is against the notification existing. The permissible 20% is exceeded and 68% load is used by the petitioner in excess. On the basis of this, penal bill is issued. As per the agreement executed between the petitioner and the KSEB, he has right to use the electricity only for domestic purposes. Petitioner has used the electricity unauthorisedly, hence dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The points for consideration are<br /> 1) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay for the bill dated 26/6/06 ?<br /> 2) Whether the petitioner’s electric supply is liable to be disconnected?<br /> 3) Reliefs and costs?<br /> <br /> 4.The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P8 and Exhibits R1 to R4. No other<br /> evidence.<br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1 According to the petitioner he is not liable to pay the bill amount of Rs.3,256/-. According to him there is no arrears and no unauthorized consumption. The respondents in their counter stated that the petitioner has used electricity unauthorisedly for conducting telephone booth and ice cream parlour. It is true that there is separate connection to the ice cream parlour. The connected load allotted to the consumer is 1000 watts, but there was consumption of 680 watts more. As per the notification, the permissible load is 20%, but here the load has exceeded to 20% to 68%. The copy of notification which is marked as Exhibit R1 contained this principle. The basis of calculation is shown in Exhibit P1 demand notice. In the petition the complainant has admitted that from the domestic connection electricity is using for the functioning of Anamika Trust. Admission which is the best evidence reveals that the complainant misused the electricity for non domestic purposes.<br /> <br /> 6. The ice cream parlour has separate consumer number and the meter was not functioning at the time of inspection. It was stated in the mahazar that the defective meter was replaced by another one and it was sealed. From the averments in the petition and counter and from the documents it can be seen that the petitioner has consumed the electricity unauthorizedly. Hence he is liable to clear the amount shown in Exhibit P1 notice.<br /> <br /> 7. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs and compensation.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open forum this the 10th day of July 2008.<br />