By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. Complainant is a consumer under opposite party as beneficiary for electricity supply tot he shop room in which he is conducting a studio as a tenant. That complainant used to pay the electricity charges regularly without any default. That the meter was working properly. While so on 09-7-2003 opposite party issued an adjustment bill for Rs.54,000/- alleging unauthorised temporary extension detected during Anti Power Theft Squad inspection conducted on 04-7-2003. That complainant did not receive any notice of inspection. On enquiries he to know that on the same day Anti power Theft Squad had conducted inspection of the premises of Grace Hospital where construction was going on. That such bills have been issued to connections of nearby shop rooms also. It is stated that the bill issued is illegal and that complainant is not liable to pay the same. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service.
2. Opposite party filed version submitting that during inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad on 04-7-2003 it was found that an unauthorised extension was taken from the premises of the complainant’s supply tot he premises of nearby Grace Hospital in such a way so as to connect a 1.5 H.P. Pumpset. A Site mahazar was prepared. The bill issued is proper and legal and complainant is liable to pay the amount. That there is no deficiency in service.
3. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.A1 marked. Opposite party filed counter affidavit Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party.
4. Complainant is aggrieved by the issuance of Ext.A1 bill dated, 09-7-2003 for Rs.54,000/-. The complaint is resisted by opposite party contending that unauthorised extension was seen drawn from the premises of the complainants supply to the nearby premises of Grace Hospital where construction work was going on. Opposite party relied on Ext.B1 site mahazar. It is stated in B1 that though this hospital has availed temporary connection for construction work several extensions are taken from supply of nearby shop rooms to the Grace Hospital premises. That a 1.5 H.P. Pumpset is seen connected in such a way that it can be used from the supply of the complainants connection as well as
from the supply of the connection of other shop rooms also. Relevant portion of Ext.B1 reads as under: “Consumer No.1568/E-യില് നിന്നും പ്രവര്ത്തിപ്പിക്കുന്ന 1.5 H.P. Pumpset മറ്റു കണക്ഷനുകളില് നിന്നും construction work consumer No.(1368/E), അതുല്യ lab (consumer No.1518/E) ലാല് സ്റ്റുഡിയോ (1566/E) എന്നീ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിലെ connection- കളില് നിന്നും ഉപയോഗിക്കത്തക്ക രീതിയിലാണ് ഘടിപ്പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നത്.
5. Complainant has failed to putforward any reliable evidence to controvert Ext.B1 mahazar, which is a document prepared by an officer as part of his official duty. Complainant has not even opted to cross examine opposite party to challenge this document. There is nothing before us to disbelieve or disregard Ext.B1. The assessment of amount and calculation are found to be proper. We find no merits in the contention raised by complainant. Hence the complaint does not succeed.
6. In the result we dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.
Dated this 21st day of May, 2009.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated, 09-7-2003 for Rs.54,000/- issued by opposite party to complainant Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the mahazar dated, 04-7-2003 prepared by V. Mohandas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Edakkara. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 04-7-2003 by Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS., Kozhikkode to opposite party.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MALAPPURAM
(Present: Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President, Smt. E. Ayishakutty, Member, Sri. Mohammed Musthafa Koothradan, Member)
Date of filing: 16-7-2003
Date of Order: 25-3-2010
Complainants Opposite party
O.P.No.182/03
1. Thuppilikkadan Sulaiman, ) Hotel Almas, ) Edakkara.P.O. ) ) O.P.No.183/03 ) ) 2. Sam Kosi, Lal Studio, Edakkara. ) Assistant Engineer, ) Electrical Section, O.P.No.184/03 ) Edakkara.P.O. ) 3. Thomas Mathew Thottathil, ) (By Adv. K. P. Sumathi, Malappuram) Franchisee Speed & Safe Courier Service, ) Edakkara (P.O.) ) ) (By Adv. P. C. Girish, Malappuram) )
ORDER
By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
The above cases are connected as they arise out of the same cause of action and opposite parties are also the same. The issues arising for adjudication are same. These cases were tried together as per Orders in I.A.554/09 allowing joint trial. All the above cases are disposed by this common order.
2. Complainant’s in the above cases challenged the bills issued by opposite party alleging unauthorised additional load. These cases were originally disposed by this Forum by separate orders upholding the bills. Complainants took up the matter in appeal. Vide judgments dated, 28-7-2009 in F.A. 327/09, 328/09, 329/09 the Hon’ble state Commission set aside the orders passed by this Forum and the cases were remanded for fresh disposal.
3. Facts: O.P.182/03 (consumer No.1518/E) Complainant is a tenant who is conducting a hotel for earning his livelihood by self employment, in the building owned by Thomas John Thayyil. Complainant is using the electricity supply provided to this room and is a beneficiary under opposite party. He used to pay the electricity charges without any default. On 09-7-2003 a bill for Rs.54,000/- was issued by opposite party. It is stated in the bill that it is issued for the use of unauthorised additional load detected during the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad. On enquiries he came to know that on 04-7-2003 Anti Power Theft Squad had inspected the premises of Grace hospital building which is situated adjacent to the building in which the complainant is conducting his hotel. Construction work was in progress in the upper floor of grace hospital building. Opposite party issued the penal bill alleging that unauthorised extension was taken from the connection used by the complainant to the premises of construction work at Grace hospital for using a 1.5 HP pumpset alternatively. Complainant challenges the bill denying the allegation and prays to set aside the bill.
4. O.P.No.183/03 (consumer No.1566/E) Complainant is a tenant running a photo studio for earning his livelihood by self employment in the building owned by Thomas John Thayyil. Complainant is using the electricity supply provided to this shop room and is a beneficiary under opposite party. He used to pay the regular bills without default. On 09-7-2003 a bill for Rs.54,000/- was issued by opposite party. It is stated in the bill that it is issued for the use of unauthorised load detected during the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad. On enquiries he came to know that on 04-7-2003 Anti Power Theft Squad has inspected the premises of Grace Hospital building which is situated adjacent to the building in which the complainant is conducting his studio Construction work was in progress in the upper floor of Grace hospital building. Opposite party issued the penal bill alleging that unauthorised extension was taken from the connection used by the complainant to the premises of construction work at Grace hospital in such manner that it could be used for 1.5 HP pumpset alternatively with extensions from other connections also. Denying the allegation complainant challenges the bill and prays to set aside the same.
5. O.P.No.184/03 (consumer No.1568/E) Complainant is a tenant running a courier service business for earning his livelihood by self employment in the building owned by Thomas John Thayyil. Complainant is using the electricity supply provided to this room and is a beneficiary under opposite party. He used to pay the regular bills without default. While so, on 09-7-2003 a bill for Rs.1,08,000/- was issued by opposite party. It is stated in the bill that it is issued for the use of unauthorised load detected during the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad. On enquiries the complainant came to know that on 04-7-2003 Anti Power Theft Squad had inspected the premises of Grace hospital building which is situated adjacent to the building in which complainant is conducting his courier service business. Construction work was in progress in the upper floor of Grace Hospital building. Opposite party issued the penal bill alleging that unauthorised extension was taken from the connection used by the complainant to the premises of construction work at Grace Hospital building in such a manner that it could be used alternatively with the unauthorised extensions from other service connection and for using three tile cutters at the construction premises. Complainant challenges the bill denying the allegations and prays to set aside the same.
6. Version was filed by opposite party in all the three cases separately. The contentions raised in all the cases are similar. It is submitted by opposite party that these electricity connections were originally in the name of T.K. John. After his death the building now belongs to his son Thomas John Thayyil. The complainants are tenants in the shop rooms of the building. Grace hospital is conducted in the building adjacent tot he building occupied by the complainants. Both these buildings belong to Thomas John Thayyil and is the consumer of the connections in both these buildings. Construction work was going on in the upper floor of Grace hospital building. A temporary connection under L.T. VIII tariff for construction purpose with consumer No.12963/E was given to Thomas John Thayyil to Grace hospital building. On 04-7-2003 the Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikkode Regional Unit along with engineers of Electrical Section, Edakkara had conducted a surprise inspection of the premises of these connections. On inspection it was found that the consumer/Thomas John Thayyil was snot using the supply from the temporary connection 12963/E for construction purpose. Instead, the consumer was using supply from the unauthorised extensions taken from several connections in the building occupied by the complainants. It is the case of opposite party that unauthorised extensions were taken from the premises of the electricity connections used by the complainants to the premises were construction work was carried on in Grace hospital building. It was found that the extensions were made in such a manner that supply from any connection/extension could be used alternatively for construction purpose at the construction premises. That from consumer No.1518E (O.P.183/03) and consumer No.1566/E(O.P.183/03) extensions were taken in a manner for alternatively using 1.5 HP pumpset. From consumer No.1568/E (O.P.184/03) the unauthorised extension was used for supply of energy to use three tile cutters of 1020 watts each. The act of the consumer is violation of provisions of law and is misuse of energy. Penal bill was issued imposing penalty three times under L.T.VIII tariff. The bills are issued under provisions of law and complainants are liable to pay the same.
7. After remand of the cases, oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Complainants in each case were examined as PW1 in their respective cases. PW2 and PW3 are witnesses examined on behalf of complainants. Ext.A1 which was marked prior to remand on the side of complainants still remain in records. No additional document was marked for complainants. Opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite parties. PW2, PW3 and DW1 were examined in O.P.182/03. The evidence adduced by these witnesses in this case was adopted by both counsels to the other two cases also, as the cross examination was entirely the same. Hence certified copies of deposition of these witnesses is placed as part of records in O.P.183/03 and O.P.184/03.
8. Points for consideration:- (i) Whether opposite party is deficient in service. (ii) If so, reliefs and costs.
9. Point (i):- Complainants in each case challenge the penal bill issued by opposite party for unauthorised additional load. In each case the disputed bill is produced and marked as Ext.A1. The following contentions are raised on the side of complainants: a) That opposite party has not conducted any inspection of the premises as alleged. b) That in the Grace hospital building there was already a temporary connection with consumer No.12963 given for construction purpose under L.T.VIII tariff and therefore, there was no need to take extensions from the connections used by the complainants to the premises of construction work at Grace hospital building. c) The bills are issued on surmises. That opposite party alleges that extensions from the connections used by each of the complainants were taken tot he premises of the Grace hospital building and was made in such a manner that a pumpset and tile cutters can be used from these connections alternatively at any time. That opposite party has not seen the use of pumpset or tile cutters at the time of inspection. d) The tiles used in the Grace hospital building was ceramic tiles. Such tiles cannot be cut with electric cutter. Manually operated cutter is used for ceramic tiles and electric tile cutter is used only for cutting granite, marbles etc. e) Opposite party alleges in the mahazar that such extensions were seen taken from other consumer numbers of the same building such as consumer No.1368E (used by tenant Athulya Lab). But no penal bill was issued to these tenants. f) That the bills are issued to meet out the vengeance of opposite party against the owner of the building Sri.Thomas John Thayyil.
10. According to opposite party the Anti Power Theft Squad, Regional Unit of Kozhikkode along with the employees at Edakkara electrical section had conducted a surprise inspection of the premises on 04-7-2003. The building in which the complainants are occupying as tenants and the building occupied by Grace hospital as tenant is owned by the same person, Thomas John Tayyil. Grace hospital was functioning in the ground floor. Construction work was being carried on in the upper floor of this building. A temporary connection under L.T.VIII tariff as consumer No.12963 was given to Grace Hospital building for the purpose of construction work, in the name of owner. That instead of using the supply from this temporary connection for the purposes of construction work, the owner/consumer Thomas John Thayyil, was using the supply from the connections used by the complainants by taking unauthorised extensions. The extensions/looping was taken in such a manner from these connections that supply could be used from any of these connections at any time at the premises where construction work was being done. At the time of inspection 1.5 HP pumpset was seen as can be used from consumer Nos.1518E (O.P.182/03) and consumer No.1566E (O.P.183/03). From consumer No.1568E (O.P.184/03) it was seen that three tile cutters of 1020 watts each could be used. That the owner Thomas John Thayyil was present during the time of inspection and he has signed the mahazar. The bill is issued for unauthorised use of additional load by the actual consumer who is Thomas John Thayyil. Assessment was made as per provisions of law.
11. The building are owned by Thomas John Thayyil and he was examined as PW2. In chief examination PW2 has deposed as under: “എടക്കര electrical section-ല് എനിക്ക് Grace Hospital-ലും തര്ക്ക സംബന്ധമായ building-ലും മറ്റു building-ലും electricity connection ഉണ്ട്. ഞാന് സ്വന്തമായി ഒരു സ്ഥാപനവും നടത്തുന്നില്ല. Grace Hospital വാടകക്ക് ആണ് കൊടുത്തിരിക്കുന്നത്. Prasanthi Hospital-ന്റെ building ഞാന് വാടകക്ക് കൊടുത്തതാണ്. Canara Bank നടത്തുന്നതും എല്ലാം വാടകക്ക് കൊടുത്ത shop rooms ആണ്. എല്ലാ മാസവും electricity Board വന്ന് reading എടുത്ത് ആ room-ലെ occupants-ന്ന് bill കൊടുക്കുകയാണ് ചെയ്യാറുളളത്.”
Undeniably the actual consumer of these electricity connections is PW2. The complainants are only tenants and beneficiaries. Opposite party does snot have a case that any of the complainant had taken unauthorised extension and misused energy for his own benefit. The clear allegation is that unauthorised extensions from all these connections was taken to one and the same place ie; the premises where construction work was going on. So the extensions were taken for the benefit of PW2 who is the owner of the building. The penal bills if served upon the complainants was served to them only because they were tenants and occupants of the shop rooms/connections from which the extensions were taken. Opposite party has not raised any allegation that it is the complainants who did the looping or extensions or committed any misuse of energy. The allegation of misuse is against PW2. He has admitted and deposed that the ultimate responsibility is for him. But PW2 has not come forward with any complaint challenging the bills. He has opted to remain behind the screen. PW1 who was examined in O.P.184/03 has stated that he filed this complaint as per direction of PW2. The complainant in O.P.183/03 who was examined as PW1 in that case has deposed as under: “എന്റെ shop-ല് Studio ആണ് നടത്തി വരുന്നത്. ആ building എല്ലാ room-ന്റെയും meter ഒരേ സ്ഥലത്ത് building-ന്റെ back side ആണ്. എനിക്ക്Ext.A1 bill എതൃകക്ഷി തന്നിട്ടില്ല. എന്റെ കൈയ്യില് inspection കഴിഞ്ഞ് bill തന്നിട്ടില്ല.” "എന്റെ ധാരണ ഈ bill building owner അടക്കുമെന്നായിരുന്നു. Ext.A1 bill Building Owner-ടെ കൈയ്യിലാണ് കൊടുത്തത്.” It is crystal clear that these litigations are instigated by PW2 and is an attempt by PW2 to absolve him from the liability by using the tenants. 12. Ext.B1 is the mahazar relied by opposite party to prove the contention of inspection and detection of misuse of energy. It is the consistent case of opposite party that PW2 was present during the inspection conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad and that PW2 has signed in Ext.B1 mahazar. A copy was also served to him. PW2 has categorically admitted his signature in Ext.B1. It is his case that no inspection was conducted by Anti Power Theft Squad; but the engineers from the office of Kerala State Electricity Board had come to the premises of Grace hospital building along with police and made him sign in Ext.B1 under threat. It is contended by PW2 that on his application for electricity connection to the Grace building the employee of Kerala State Electricity Board demanded to pay Rs.50,000/-. He refused to pay this amount and thereafter obtained electricity connection through the M.L.A. That the officer of Kerala State Electricity Board has issued the penal bills to mete out this vengeance. The evidence of PW2 in this regard is as under: “എന്റെ സാന്നിദ്ധ്യത്തില് APTS Officers വന്ന് പരിശോധന നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല. B1-ല് ഞാന് ഒപ്പിട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. അവര് മഹസ്സര് സംഭവസ്ഥലത്തുവച്ച് തയ്യാറാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. APTS വന്നത് 4 പേര് അടങ്ങുന്ന സംഘമാണ്. ഒരു S.I.-യും രണ്ടു പോലീസുകാരും പിന്നെ K.S.E.B.-യിലെ Engineer-ഉം ആയിരുന്നു. എന്നോട് building-ല് കരണ്ട് കട്ട് എടുക്കുന്നതായി കാണുന്നുണ്ട് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. ഒപ്പിടാന് നിര്ബന്ധിച്ചു. ഒപ്പിടില്ല എന്നു ഞാന് പറഞ്ഞു. ഒപ്പിടണമെന്നു പറഞ്ഞു ഭീഷണിപ്പെടുത്തി. അങ്ങനെയാണ് ഞാന് ഒപ്പിട്ടത്. എനിക്കെതിരെ K.S.E.B. വ്യാജ പരാതിയാണ് കൊടുത്തിട്ടുളളത്. ഞാന് Grace Hospital-ലിന്െറ building construction തീര്ന്നശേഷം Grace Hospital-ല് തുടങ്ങുന്നതിനു മുന്പ് building-ലേക്ക് connection-നുവേണ്ടി അപേക്ഷിച്ചിരുന്നു. അപ്പോള് നേരെ മുന്പിലുളള transformer-ല് capacity-യില്ലാ എന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. പല ഒഴിവും പറഞ്ഞ് എന്നെ നടത്തിച്ചു. അതു കഴിഞ്ഞ് പിന്നെ ആളെ അയച്ചു പറഞ്ഞു. 50,000/- ക. തന്നാല് connection തരാമെന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. ആ പണം ഞാന് കൊടുത്തില്ല. പിന്നീട് മഞ്ചേരി വന്ന് Assistant Executive Engineer-റെ കണ്ടു. പിന്നീട്M.L.A. മുഖാന്തിരം connection എനിക്ക് ലഭിച്ചു. അതിന്െറ വിരോധം Electricity Board-ല് നിന്നും APTS inspection-ന് വന്ന officer-ക്ക് ഉണ്ട്. അതുകൊണ്ടായിരിക്കണം ഇപ്രകാരം bill തന്നത്.” 13. The admission of signature by PW2 in Ext.B1 proves his presence at the premises during the relevant time and also establishes the reliability of Ext.B1. The contention of PW2 that he signed Ext.B1 under threat by police does not inspire any confidence in us. PW2 is a man with sufficient educational background and is financially well off. From his own testimony that he met the M.L.A. and obtained electricity connection proves his political influence also. A person with such background will not be an easy victim to any such threats. Even if he was subjected to such threat he has not raised any complaint before any authority against such threat till this date even after receiving the penal bills. This cuts the root of his contention of signing the mahazar under threat. For these reasons his contention that he signed Ext.B1 mahazar under threat is totally unacceptable to us. There is nothing to disbelieve the contents in Ext.B1, which stands proved.
14. In Ext.B1 the details regarding the unauthorised extension taken and the misuse of energy are stated which is reproduced as under: “ഈ കണക്ഷന് Grace Hospital എന്ന സ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ കെട്ടിട നിര്മ്മാണ പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങള്ക്കായി എടുത്തിട്ടുളളതാകുന്നു. ശ്രീ തോമസ് ജോണ് തയ്യില് എന്നയാളുടെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലുളളതാണ് ടി കണക്ഷന് . ഇതിന്െറ മീറ്റര് നംപര് 340615/5- ആകുന്നു. പരിശോധന സമയത്തെ റീഡിംഗ് 04061.5 ആകുന്നു. Hospital കെട്ടിടത്തിന്െറ ചുമരിന്െറ സമീപത്തായി സ്ഥാപിച്ചിട്ടുളള താല്ക്കാലിക മരപ്പലകയിലാണ് മീറ്റര് സ്ഥിതി ചെയ്യുന്നത്. പ്രസ്തുത മരപ്പലകയില് ഒരു മെയിന് സ്വിച്ച് (Double pole) സ്ഥാപിച്ച് പ്രസ്തുത മെയിന് സ്വിച്ചില് നിന്നും നീല നിറത്തിലുളള PVC ഇന്സുലേഷനുളള കോപ്പര് വയറുകള് PVC condenser-നകത്തു കൂടെ എടുക്കുകയും പ്രസ്തുത വയറുകള് ആശുപത്രിയില് പുതിയതായി സ്ഥാപിച്ച വൈദ്യുത പാനലില് എത്തിക്കുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്. മെയിന് സ്വിച്ചിന്െറ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്നും മൂന്നു നീല വയറുകളാണ് ഉത്ഭവിക്കുന്നതെങ്കിലും ആശുപത്രിയുടെ പാനലില് രണ്ടു നീല വയറും ഒരു ചുവപ്പു വയറുമാണ് ഉളളത്. മെയിന് സ്വിച്ച് ഓഫ് ചെയ്യുംപോള് ആശുപത്രി പാനലില് സപ്ളൈ പോകുന്നുണ്ട്. ആശുപത്രിയില് പരിശോധന സമയത്ത് 20KV ജനറേറ്റര് പ്രവര്ത്തിച്ചു വരുന്നുണ്ട്. ആശുപത്രി 8-5-2003-ല് ആണ് തുടങ്ങിയത് എന്നറിയുന്നത്. ഉദ്ദേശം ഉദ്ഘാടനത്തിന് ഒരു മാസം മുന്പാണ് ജനറേറ്റര് സ്ഥാപിച്ചത് എന്നറിയുന്നു.” “ആശുപത്രിയുടെ നിര്മ്മാണ പ്രവര്ത്തനങ്ങള്ക്കായി 1020watts-ന്െറ മൂന്നു Tile cutter- റുകള് ആണ് ആകെ പ്രവര്ത്തിച്ചിരുന്നത്. ആശുപത്രിയിലേക്ക് പുതിയ കണക്ഷനായി CD അടച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നറിയുന്നു. ആശുപത്രി കെട്ടിടങ്ങളുടെ പണികള്ക്കായി ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന 1020watts-ന്െറ മൂന്നു കട്ടറുകള്ക്ക് വൈദ്യുതി എത്തുന്നത് യഥാര്ത്ഥ കണ്സ്ട്രക്ഷന് കണക്ഷനില് നിന്നല്ല എന്നും പരിശോധനയില് മനസ്സിലായി. വിശദമായ പരിശോധനയില് Grace ആശുപത്രിയുടെ സമീപത്തുളള മറ്റൊരാശുപത്രിയായPrasanthi Hospital-ന്െറ ചുമരില് ഘടിപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുളള കണ്സ്യൂമര് നംപര് 1568/E എന്ന കണക്ഷനില് നിന്നാണെന്ന് മനസ്സിലായി. കണ്സ്യൂമര് നംപര് 1568/E-യില് Speed and Safe Courier Service എന്ന സ്ഥാപനമാണ് പ്രവര്ത്തിക്കുന്നത്. ഈ സ്ഥാപനത്തില് ഫാന് 60W ഒന്ന്, Tube 40W രണ്ട്, TV ഒന്ന്, കംപ്യൂട്ടര് ഒന്ന്, 1.5 HP motor pumpset ഒന്ന് എന്നിവയാണ് പ്രവര്ത്തിക്കുന്നത്. ആശുപത്രിയിലെ നിര്മ്മാണാവശ്യങ്ങളക്കായുളള മൂന്നു കട്ടറുകള് ഒരു കണക്ഷനില് നിന്നാണ്ഉപയോഗിച്ചു വരുന്നത് എന്ന് പരിശോധന സമയത്ത്കൂടെയുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ശ്രീ. Thomas John Thayyil-നെ ബോധ്യപ്പെടുത്തി. Consumer നംപര് 1568/E-യുടെ മീറ്റര് നംപര് 24636/ പരിശോധന സമയത്തെ റീഡിംഗ് 9948 Consumer No.1568/E-യില് നിന്നു പ്രവര്ത്തിക്കുന്ന1.5HP pumpset മറ്റു കണക്ഷനുകളില് നിന്നും (Canara bank consumer No.1368/E, അതുല്യ ലാബ്(1518/E) ലാല് സ്റ്റുഡിയോ(1566/E) എന്നീ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളിലെ കണക്ഷനുകളില് നിന്നും ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന രീതിയിലാണ് ഘടിപ്പിച്ചകാണുന്നത്.”
15. It is the case of opposite party that instead of using the supply from the temporary connection (consumer No.12963/E) given for construction purpose, PW2 was using the supply from the connections provided to the shop rooms occupied by the complainants. Undisputedly the building in which complainants occupy as tenants and the building in which construction was going on are lying very adjacent to each other. So it is possible and convenient to take such extensions. Further the tariff of temporary connection (consumer No.12963/E) is L.T. VIII (8) and is higher than the tariff of the connections used in the shop rooms by the complainants which is L.T.VII(7). So the case of opposite party that PW2 had taken extensions for supply of energy to use at the premises of construction work is highly probable.
16. Another contention raised by the complainant is that opposite party has not seen the use of 1.5 HP pumpset or tile cutters at the time of inspection and that the bill is prepared only by assumptions and presumptions. It is also the case of complainant that Ext.A1 bills for Rs.54,000/- was issued to both consumer Nos.1518/E(O.P.182/03) and 1566/E(O.P.183/03) stating that 1.5 HP pumpset was used in these connections. That only one pumpset was seen as per Ext.B1 mahazar. That this pumpset cannot be used in both these connections simultaneously and so the bills are issued on assumptions.
17. It is correct that a bill for Rs.54,000/- is issued to both consumer No.1518/E and 1566/E alleging use of 1.5 HP pumpset. It is also correct that only one pumpset was noted by opposite party at the premises as per Ext.B1 mahazar. The contention of complainant that the bills are issued on assumptions cannot be appreciated by us. It is the consistent case of opposite party supported by
Ext.B1 mahazar that the extensions from these connections were taken to the switch board at the premises of the construction work in such a manner that supply from these connections could be used alternatively at any time. Needless to say that such use of energy would prevent overloading/over consumption of energy in a single connection and thus make it not easily detectable in variation in consumption pattern. There was no defect to the meter and there is no allegation of theft of energy. The energy consumed was recorded in the respective meters. But was billed under a lesser tariff of VII B though it was used for the purpose of higher tariff (VIII). The penalty for unauthorised load is not calculated basing upon meter reading but basing upon the load connected. It was submitted by opposite party that the load of the motor pump and tile cutter was verified by the markings/name plate on these gadgets. The bill was prepared basing upon this. The evidence of DW1 in this regard is as under: "മഹസ്സറില് pumpset-ഉം tile cutter-ഉം എത്ര power/watts-ന്െറതാണ് എന്നു check ചെയ്തതായി കാണില്ല. Witness adds. അത് ആയതിന്െറ name plate നോക്കിയാണ് മഹസ്സര് തയ്യാറാക്കുന്നതും bill തയ്യാറാക്കുന്നതും.”
18. Misuse of energy is stated in clause 42 of Terms and conditions of supply of electrical energy, 1990. Clause 42(d) provides as under: 42(d) “If the consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior permission of the Board or energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used without the board’s knowledge and approval for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable coming under misuse of energy within the meaning of the I.E.Act, 1910. Misuse of energy 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 unless there are convincing reasons for adopting different periods and supply disconnected without notice. The imposition of this higher rate will not relieve the consumer from any penalties imposed by law.”
19. The penalty imposed for use of pumpset in O.P.182/03 and O.P.183/03 is as under: -- The tariff applicable for the purpose for which energy was misused (for construction purpose) is L.T. VIII. -- Fixed charge for L.T.VIII is Rs.50/- per K.W. Per day. -- Unauthorised load = 1.5 HP = 1.1 KW ~ 2 K.W. -- Misuse was continued as unauthorised, and assessed for 6 months as per Clause 42(d). The penalty as per this clause is three times. The calculation is: 50 x 2KW x 180 days x 3 = Rs.54,000/-.
We do not find any illegality in this calculation. Though the pumpsets cannot be used simultaneously in both connections, as the penalty is imposed basing upon the load connected, and not the meter reading, we do not find any error committed by opposite party. 20. It was also argued on behalf of complainant in O.P.184/03 that the tiles laid on the floor of the building of Grace hospital was ceramic tiles for which an electric tile cutter cannot be used. That only for laying granite tiles and marbles, electric tile cutters are ordinarily used. PW3 was examined by complainant in this regard. He deposed that he had done the work of laying the tiles at the Grace hospital building for PW2. It is stated by PW3 that only ceramic tiles were laid on the floor of the building, for which electric tile cutters cannot be used. This witness has deposed that he came to give evidence on the request of the counsel for complainant. DW1 has deposed that electric tile cutters can be used by changing suitable blades. In Ext.B1 mahazar it is seen stated that three electric tile cutters with 1020 watts each were seen in the premises which could be connected to the unauthorised extensions. As already stated the power/watts of the tile cutter was noted by opposite party from the marking/name plate on the tile cutters. If the case of PW2 and PW3 is true, then PW2 who has admitted his signature in Ext.B1 and has received a copy of B1 on the same day has not taken any
steps to report to any higher officer of Kerala State Electricity Board that the tile cutters were not electric tile cutters but manually operated cutters. Interestingly it is PW2 who has put forward the case denying the use of electric tile cutters. Complainant has not put forward any such contention. Further PW1 in O.P.(184/03) has deposed that after receiving Ext.A1 penal bill he had consulted PW2 who had advised him to file this complaint. It is neither averred nor affirmed by the complainant in O.P.184/03 that the tile cutters were not electric tile cutters. The absence of such pleadings in O.P.184/03 which is highly material together with the fact that PW1 had consulted PW2 before filing this case and also that PW2 had received copy of Ext.B1 makes the contention put forward by PW2 that electric cutters were not used to be highly unconvincing. It can only be an after thought put forward at the time of adducing evidence. PW3 is only a partisan witness and his evidence is not creditworthy. It was submitted by opposite party that three electric tile cutters were seen and so the penal bill for 4KW was issued. -- The unauthorised load = 1020 watts x 3 = 3060 watts ~ 4KW. -- Fixed charge in L.T. VIII = Rs.50/- -- 50 x 4KW x 180 days x 3 times = 1,08,000/-
We do not find any error in the assessment made in Ext.A1 bill issued in O.P.184/03 for Rs.1,08,000/-. 21. Yet another argument raised on behalf of the complainant is that as per Ext.B1 mahazar it is seen stated that such unauthorised extension was taken from consumer No.1368/E also. This room was occupied by Athulya lab. It was submitted that opposite party has not issued any penal bill to Athulya lab which would show that the bills are issued falsely. We cannot accept this argument. All these connections are undisputedly in the name of PW2. It is PW2 who has taken the unauthorised extensions from the several connections provided to his building to the construction premises. The tenants are not in any way responsible for misuse. Omission if any on the part of opposite party to issue a penal bill cannot be a ground to set aside a penal bill which is otherwise proper and legal. It is clearly stated in clause 24 of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1910 that any extension or alteration in the connection can be done only with the consent of the Board. 22. The counsel for complainant also argued that the opposite party did not issue notice to complainants before inspection or before imposing penalty. That no hearing was conducted. Under clause 28 of the Kerala state Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, 1990 it is stated that authorised employees of the Board are entitled at all reasonable times to enter upon the premises of the consumer. Though the counsel argued that there was no notice issued or hearing conducted by opposite party, the relevant provisions upon which the counsel relied were not adverted to before us. The bill is issued under 42(d) of Keralal State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions 1990. Hence this contention of the counsel is untenable. 23. From the above discussions we are able to find that Ext.A1 bills issued in each of the above cases are legal, proper and valid. The consumer is liable to pay the same. Complainants have failed to establish any grounds to set aside these bills. We therefore do not find any deficiency on the part of opposite party. 24. In the result all the three complaints fail. There is no order as to costs. Dated this 25th day of March, 2010.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
O.P.No.182/03
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1, PW2 and PW3 PW1 : Thuppilikkadan Sulaiman, Complainant. PW2 : Thomas John Thayyil, W/o T.K. John, Edakkara.(witness) PW3 : C.M. Thomas, W/o C.V. Mathew, Palad. (witness) Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated, 16-7-2003 for Rs.54,000/- issued by opposite party to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1 DW1 : Aboobacker, Assistant Engineer,Electrical Section, Edakkara.P.O. Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the mahazar dated, 04-7-2003 prepared by V. Mohandas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Edakkara. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 04-7-2003 by Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS., Kozhikkode to opposite party. O.P.No.183/03
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1, PW2 and PW3 PW1 : Sam Koshi, Complainant. PW2 : Thomas John Thayyil, W/o T.K. John, Edakkara.(witness) PW3 : C.M. Thomas, W/o C.V. Mathew, Palad. (witness) Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated, 09-7-2003 for Rs.54,000/- issued by opposite party to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1 DW1 : Aboobacker, Assistant Engineer,Electrical Section, Edakkara.P.O. Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the mahazar dated, 04-7-2003 prepared by V. Mohandas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Edakkara. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 04-7-2003 by Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS., Kozhikkode to opposite party.
O.P.No.184/03
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1, PW2 and PW3 PW1 : Thomas Mathew, Complainant. PW2 : Thomas John Thayyil, W/o T.K. John, Edakkara.(witness) PW3 : C.M. Thomas, W/o C.V. Mathew, Palad. (witness) Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the demand notice cum disconnection notice dated, 16-7-2003 for Rs.1,08,000/- issued by opposite party to complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1 DW1 : Aboobacker, Assistant Engineer,Electrical Section, Edakkara.P.O. Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2 Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the mahazar dated, 04-7-2003 prepared by V. Mohandas, Sub Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Edakkara. Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 04-7-2003 by Asst. Executive Engineer, APTS., Kozhikkode to opposite party.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
| 
