O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party electricity board with vide consumer No. 4627005687 of Nattakom Section, under LT VII A Tariff. According to the petitioner he is running a weighbridge in the name and style as ‘Parappallil Weigh Bridge’. In the same compound petitioner is running a smoke emission testing centre. According to the petitioner he is solely depending on the income from the commercial activities for his livelihood. The connected load of the petitioner is 1K.W. Petitioner is regularly paying the electricity charges payable by him as against the invoices issued by the opposite parties. On 19..12..2008 RAO team, Kottayam inspected petitioner’s premises and found the -2- connected load of the petitioner as 4 KW. They prepared a mahazar and consequently issued a penal bill for an amount of Rs. 28493/- Along with bill a letter was issued requesting the petitioner to remit the amount and had given the petitioner the liberty to file objection to the second opposite party. Petitioner filed objection . Second opposite party disposed the matter upholding the bill already issued. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing penal bill is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner is running the weighbridge for profit making and not solely for his livelihood and the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (d) ii of Consumer Protection Act. On 19..12..2008 RAO Kottayam inspected the premises of the petitioner and prepared a site mahazar. The connected load at the premises at the time of inspection was 4 KW. The authorized load for the consumer is only 1 K.W. So, the bill for an amount of Rs. 28493/- is issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed objection he was heard on 13..1..2009 and final bill, as per 126 of the Electricity Act was issued to the petitioner. According to the opposite party the bill is issued legally and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the bill. So, they pray for 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 A7 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 According to the petitioner, there is no un authorized load and assessment done by the opposite party is not legal. Counsel for the petitioner argued that section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 deals with unauthorized use of electricity and consequent electricity charges payable by such person . It has no connection with unauthorized load. Further argued that when there is specific penalty for un authorized load in regulation 51(4) of the KSEB. Terms and conditions of supply and there is separate penal provisions for unauthorized use of electricity vide regulation 50 (5) and (6). Moreover, section 126 of electricity act is intended for consequence of theft of electricity. . So, according to the petitioner the assessment is baseless. We are of the view that the argument placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct. Section 126 (6) (b) of electricity Act 2003 defines (1) un authorized use of electricity as usage of electricity by any artificial means. (2) by means not authorized by concerned person or authority or licensee (3) Through a tampered meter for the purpose other than for which usage -4- of electricity was authorized. Here admittedly the connected load of the petitioner is 1 KW. Petitioner admittedly at the time of inspection is using 4 KW of electricity by means not authorized by licensee amount to un authorized use of electricity. So, in our view the assessment of the opposite party definitely come under the purview of the section 126 of electricity Act 2003. The other argument put forward by the counsel for the opposite party is that the duty is payable for electricity sold to a consumer as per vide Kerala Electricity duty act 1963. When the penalty is imposed it is not electricity sold. So, assessment is baseless. According to the opposite party said argument is not sustainable because as per order No. plgcom.4498/02/08-09/11 Dt: 6..10..2008 of Chief Engineer the assessment is done. Opposite party produced the board order and is marked as Ext. B6. In Ext. B6 it is stated that for LT Consumers the duty has to be levied 10% of the price of energy indicated in the invoice. As such the duty to be levied for the penal energy charge component. So, in our view the duty assessed is legal. So, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing the disputed bill. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and -5- pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of July, 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: Carbon copy of Mahazar dtd: 19..12..2008 Ext. A2: Invoice dtd: 2..1..2009 Ext. A3: Ltr. Dtd: 2..1..2009 Ext. A4: Copy of objection dtd: 8..1..2009 Ext. A5: Order No. BB/VAL/08-09/31/dtd: 2..2..2009 Ext. A6 Invoice dtd: 17..2..2009 Ext.. A7: Receipt dtd: 17..2..2009 for an amount of Rs. 14,247/- Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Mahazar Dtd: 19..12..2008 Ext. B2: Order No. BB/VAL/08-09/2..1..2008 Ext. B3: Objection dtd: 13..1..2009 Ext. B4: Proceedings of the A.E Dtd: 2..2..2009 Ext. B5: Copy of order of Regulattory Commission Ext. B6: Copy of order No. Plg. Com. 4498/02/08-09 Dtd: 6..10..2008. By Order,
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
