IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2011.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.81/10 (Filed on 07.06.2010)

Between:

1.     Shajahan, Will View,

Thonnalloor, Pandalam.

2.     Radhakrishnan, Saranya,

Thonnalloor, Pandalam.

(By Adv. K.K. Radhakrishnan)                                  .....     Complainant

And:

1.     Asst.Engineer,

KSEB, Electrical Section,

Pandalam.

2.     Asst. Exe. Engineer,

      -do.    –do.

3.     Deputy Chief Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Circle,

Pathanamthitta.

4.     Sudheer, Lineman,

KSEB Electrical Section,

Pandalam.

5.     Ajith Kumar, Spot Biller,

        -do.   –do.

6.     Venugopal, Sub Enginner,

        -do.    –do.                                                   .....     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member):

                   Complainant filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. Fact of the case in brief is as follows:  2^nd complainant is the owner of the building where the 1^st complainant is conducting a shop named Gulf Bazar and he is conducting the sale of mobile phone, mobile phone repairing and electronic repairing.  As per the application opposite parties connected LT VIIA tariff by sanctioning 17 bulb points, 2 plug point, 1 phone point.  The sanctioned connected load is as follows:

                   Bulb           -        17x60 Walts

                   Plug           -        2x60 Walts

                   Fan             -        1x60 Walts

Total          -        20x60 Walts-1200-12 unit per days

                   3. Details of 1^st complainant’s current bill from 1.6.09 to 3.4.2010 is shown below:

                   4. As per the above-connected load, the average use of electricity is 345 units.  The daily use is 5.75 unit.  1^st complainant has been prompt in paying the bill issued by opposite parties.  On 15.4.2010 1^st complainant received a letter from 1^st opposite party stating that they inspected the complainant’s shop on 20.2.09 and found that he had been using 2 KW current as additional load and has to pay ` 18,505 as penal charges within seven days or to file an appeal before 3<sup>rd</sup> opposite party by remitting ` 9,252.

                   5. On 3.4.2010 5^th opposite party inspected the energy meter and reading is recorded as 351 unit and issued a bill of ` 2,456 and thereafter on, 5.4.10.  5<sup>th</sup> opposite party issued another bill of ` 4,416.  By noting the same date and same consumption.  When 1^st complainant enquired, it is learned that in his absence on 11.2.10 opposite parties came and took a list of electrical utensils from the shop.  He enquired this matter to 4^th opposite party he issued a copy of paper that signed by the complainant on 7.2.10.  When he read the matter it is learned that the A.C and Computer UPS, which is taken for repairing, is also included in it.  As an electric repairing shop the said utensils were taken for repairing.

                   6. Complainant’s meter is installed by opposite parties.  There is no allegation with regard to the meter reading.  The spot bill is issued as per the current consumption.  Complainant has been paying the energy charges.  Therefore he is not bound to pay the penal charges retrospectively.  Before issuing the challenged bill of ` 18,505 opposite parties inspected 1<sup>st</sup> complainant’s shop.  They have not informed the unauthorised use of electricity or change of tariff till 17.2.10.  The bill No.1314996 issued by opposite party is also illegal.  All the said matters were informed to opposite parties.  But they neither replied nor resolved.  Hence this complaint to set aside the bill of ` 18,805 and ` 4,416 with compensation and cost.

                   7. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.  According to them, 1^st complainant is running a mobile selling & servicing shop and is an occupier of the building with an electric connection.  At the time of giving connection the connected load of the complainant is 860 watts, which is shown as follows:

1.  6 numbers of 40 watts light points              6 x 40           =  240 watts

2.  2 numbers of 60 watts plug points              2 x 60           =  120 watts       

3.  1 number of 500 watts power plug             1 x 500 =  500 watts

                                                                                      --------------------

                                                          Total                    =                          860 watts  

                   8. The commercial consumers are billed by taking fixed charge @ ` 50 per KW connected load and energy charge is arrived based on energy consumption at the rate fixed by the board for each slabs.  As per inspection on 11.2.10 they found that the complainant is using a total connected load of 2760 watts.  The details of which is shown below:

1.  17 numbers of 40 watts light points            17 x 40 =  680 watts

2.  2 numbers of 60 watts plug points              2 x 60           =  120 watts

3.  UPS (500 VA)                                               1 x 400  =  400 watts

4.  1 number of 60 watts fan                              1 x 60             =   60 watts       

5.  AC 1 ton                                                        1 x 1500  1500 watts

                                                                                          --------------------

                                                          Total          =                       2760 watts

                   9. The site mahazar was prepared by the Sub Engineer in the squad and get it signed from the 1^st complainant.  1^st opposite party issued provisional assessment bill amounting to ` 18,505 on 17.2.10 as per Sec.126 of Electricity Act.  1^st complainant filed objection against the bill on 17.2.10 before the 1^st opposite party.  Hearing conducted on 23.2.10 and final order was issued on 8.4.10 upholding the provisional assessment.  The calculation is stated as follows:

Unauthorised load                                                      -  2 KW

Fixed charge for additional load on penal rate                  -  2x50x2x2x6 = 2400

Consumption for one year                                          -  3254 units

Energy charge for proportionate consumption

in authorised load                                              -  3254 x ^2/₃  = 2169 units

Rate for 1 unit ` 6.75 for 2169 units                 = 2169 x 6.75  =  14640.75

10% duty                                                             = 14640.75x ¹⁰/₁₀₀

                                                                   = 1464.08

Total Amount                                                     = 2400 + 14640.75 + 1464.08

                                                                             =  18504.83

Rounded to         ` 18,505

                                                                   ========         

                   10. According to opposite parties, a clerical error was occurred in the said order in the subject regarding the consumer number and date due to oversight.  5^th opposite party issued spot bill on 3.4.10 without knowing about the unauthorised additional load of 2 KW.  It is detected by the senior superintendent of Electrical Section, Pandalam and the bill is corrected by taking penal charges for unauthorised additional load and issued to the 1^st complainant.  1^st complainant remitted the bill amount. 

                   11. During the inspection on 11.2.10 the 1^st complainant is present in the shop and signed in the site mahazar.  At the time of objection hearing conducted on 23.2.10 the 1^st complainant admitted that he had connected Air Conditioner from the month of May 2009 in his shop.  1^st complainant is running a mobile selling and servicing shop.  NO other electronic equipment is repairing in the shop.  Hence the load taken for UPS & AC in the mahazar is in order.  Therefore, the bill issued on 3.4.10 is legally valid.  The final bill is issued on 8.4.2010.  The unauthorised load was not yet regularised by the 1^st complainant.  Therefore, there is no irregularities or laches on the part of opposite party.  Hence they canvassed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                   12. From the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?

(3)   Reliefs & Costs?

             13. Evidence of the complaint consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complaint along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6.

          14. Evidence of opposite parties consists of the proof affidavit filed by the 2^nd opposite party along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B4.  After closure of evidence, both parties were heard.

                   15. Point Nos. 1 to 3:-  In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A6 series.  Ext.A1 is the penal bill of ` 18,805 dated 17.2.10 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A2 is the bill of ` 2,456 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A3 is the bill of ` 4,416 dated 3.4.2010 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A4 is the copy of site mahazar dated 11.2.2010 prepared by opposite parties.  Ext.A5 is the copy of order-dated 8.4.2010 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A6 is the bill of ` 2,655 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A6(a) is the bill of ` 3,320 dated 3.10.07 issued by opposite parties.  Ext.A6(b) is the bill of ` 2,083 dated 1.12.09 issued by opposite parties.

          16. In order to prove the opposite parties contention, 2^nd opposite party filed proof affidavit along with certain documents.  He was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.  Ext.B1 is the copy of site mahazar issued to complainant.  Ext.B2 is the objection filed by the complainant against the bill-dated 17.2.2010 before the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.B3 is the minutes of the hearing dated 23.2.2010.  Ext.B4 is the complaint filed by the complainant against the bills before the 2^nd opposite party dated 21.4.2010.

          17. On the basis of the contention and averments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  1^st complainant’s case is that opposite parties issued illegal bill without any basis even though he had been remitting fixed charges promptly.  According to opposite parties, 1^st complainant has been issued bill for unauthorised connected load over and above the existing connected load.  Therefore, there is no irregularity in issuing the higher bill.

          18. On a perusal of materials on record it is learned that 1^st complainant’s connection is for commercial purposes and is billed under LT VII A tariff.  He has been paying the charges of fixed connected load of 860 watts.  Ext.A4 and B1 site mahazar shows that 1^st complainant’s connected load is high, i.e. 2760 watts on the basis of points and equipment used.  Therefore according to opposite parties, Ext.A1 and A5 were issued based on Ext.B1.

          19. Though the 1^st complainant challenged Ext.B1, facts and circumstances shows that he has sufficient knowledge regarding the inspection conducted on 11.2.2010.  Ext.B2, B3 and B4 shows that he agitated against the inspection and Ext.A1.  But according to 1^st complainant, opposite parties fraudulently obtained his signature in Ext.B1 and B3.  But this allegation has not been raised in Ext.B2 and Ext.B4.  Moreover, we cannot find any dissimilarity of 1^st complainant’s signature shown in Ext.B1 to that of Ext.B2, B3 and B4.  Therefore the allegation against Ext.B1 and B3 were not sustainable.

          20. It is also pertinent to note that 1^st complainant failed to prove that A.C and UPS kept in his shop were for the purpose of repairing.  In Ext.B3 he admitted that he has purchased the A.C and connected it on May.  All this shows that 1^st complainant failed either to prove his case or to disprove the opposite parties contention.  From the available materials on record, we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Therefore, complaint is not allowable.

          21. However from the facts and circumstances, it is observed that 1^st complainant can mitigate the burden of penal bill either to opt regularisation of the unauthorised additional load or to remove the unauthorised additional load.  He has the liberty to adopt either of the above after clearing dues if any.

          22. In the light of the order of this case, the order in I.A.91/10 is hereby vacated and the complaint is allowed to remit the balance amount of the impugned bill within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

          23. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with the above directions.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 21^st day of July, 2011.

                                                                                                 (Sd/-)

                                                                                       N. Premkumar,

                                                                                              (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                  :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  K.A. Shajahan.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :  Photocopy of the provisional penal bill dated 17.2.10 for ` 18,805

             issued by opposite parties. 

A2     :  Photocopy of the bill for ` 2,456 issued by opposite parties. 

A3     :  Photocopy of the bill dated 3.4.10 for ` 4,416 issued by opposite  

             parties. 

A4     :  Photocopy of site mahazar dated 11.2.2010 prepared by 

               opposite parties. 

A5     :   Photocopy of proceedings dated 8.4.2010 issued by the 1^st opposite

               party. 

A6     :   Photocopy of the bill for ` 2,655 issued by opposite parties. 

A6(a) :  Photocopy of the bill dated 3.10.07 for ` 3,320 issued by opposite

              parties.

A6(b)          :  Photocopy of the bill dated 1.12.09 for ` 2,083 issued by opposite  

              parties.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :  K. Ajitha

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :  Photocopy of site mahazar. 

B2     :  Letter dated 17.2.2010 sent by the 1^st complainant to the 1^st opposite

             party. 

B3     :   Minutes of the hearing dated 23.2.2010. 

B4     :  Complaint filed by the complainant before the 2^nd opposite party 

             dated 21.4.2010.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Shajahan, Will View, Thonnalloor, Pandalam.

(2)  Radhakrishnan, Saranya, Thonnalloor, Pandalam.

(3) Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pandalam.

(4) Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Pandalam.

(5) Deputy Chief Engineer, KSEB Electrical Circle,

            Pathanamthitta.

(6) The Stock File.