PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 4th day of November 2011
Filed on :09/07/2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.384/2010
Between
Lillykutty Antony, : Complainant
W/o. Antony, Chakiath house, (Adv. T.S. Rajan)
Puthenpally, Varappuzha P.O.,
Ernakulam.
And
Asst. Executive Engineer, : Opposite party
Kerala State Electricity Board, (By Adv. P.B. Ashokan,
(KSEB), Varapuzha Electrical XL/4664, Banerji road,
Section, Varappuzha P.O., Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031)
Ernakulam.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The complainant narrates the facts as under:
The complainant enjoy an agricultural electricity connection for the purpose of irrigation of land which has now been reduced to 23 cents. In an inspection of the pump house conducted by Asst. Executive engineer several electrical articles were found in the premises, including an old A/c and a motor etc. Also it is stated in the Mahazar that her husband has been conducting a service station in the pump house. As a sequel to the said inspection a Penal bill to the tune of Rs. 70,443/-(Rupees seventy thousand four hundred and forty three only) was issued to her on the ground that her husband has been conducting a service station and excessive load was connected unauthorizedly. Actually there was only a 100 W bulb and power point in the pump house apart from a .5 HP motor. The air conditioner said to have been found was not in a working condition. The mahazar was prepared on 20-04-2010 but it was signed by the engineer on 29-04-2010 only. Hence it is alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which several reliefs have been sought in the complaint.
2. Opposite party has submitted version denying the allegations. Even though the disputed connection was availed for agricultural purposes it was abused for other purposes. It was conceded by the complainant herself that she has now only 23 cents of agricultural land which is below the ceiling limit of 30 cents fixed by the board. The inspection was duly conducted by opposite party in a legitimate manner. Only those equipments which were connected to the electric supply and being used were taken into account for penalization. Two pumps were found as also an air conditioner in working condition in the adjacent by the complainant. The tariff was based on the misuse of the electrical energy for industrial purpose. The penalty was calculated and imposed as per norms. The air conditioner was properly installed with all accessories fitted on the wall. The extra ventilations/openings were plugged for the efficient operation of the air conditioner. The difference in the dates found in the mahazar was due to clerical error. The preparation of penal bill was made strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. Moreover the complainant has not exhausted the remedies provided by Electricity Act 2003. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. Witness for complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A12 were marked on the side of complainant. Opposite party was examined as DW1. Then both sides were heard.
4. The short points for settlement are:
i. Whether there was any unauthorized electrical equipments connected to general supply?
ii. Whether penalization was made according to the norms?
iii. What are the reliefs, if any
5. Point No. (i) & (ii). This complaint has been filed challenging the validity of Ext. A2 penal bill for Rs. 70,443/- Rupees seventy thousand four hundred and forty three only) contending that opposite party had been motivated by personal vendetta in issuing the impunged bill to the tune of excessively huge amount. She alleges that a particular lineman is the kingpin behind the whole episode. She was using the pump house to store some articles which were out of use. She does not deny that there was an air conditioner found in the room, but it was in fact dumped into that space when the equipment became defunct. Simililarly the allegation that her husband has been conducting a service centre there also is denied. When we examine the impugned action of the opposite party, one cannot overlook the fact that the penal bill has been issued only after conducting an inspection, the mahasar prepared there of being produced before us as Ext. A1. It is also to be noticed that the husband of the complainant has signed on the document as witness. In the mahasar it is stated that the inspection team has detected a .5 H.P motor and a 1500 W Air conditioner in the rooms which were connected to the supply line. Also it is alleged that the same premise was misused as a service room for electrical repairing purposes. Whenever the electrical licensee conducts a proper enquiry on a premise where electricity is purportedly misused, the inspection cannot be simply brushed aside by upholding the contention that the officers were acting for some extraneous purposes. The sanctity of the mahasar prepared on the occasion of inspection has been underlined by the Hon’ble National Commission in its decision in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (NC)1.
The ratio of the said decision is as follows:
“the inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific pretest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the reports on record, it bears no signatures of the consumer/consumer’s representatives, one with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report. The words ‘under protest’ have been recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the ambiquity in the protest raised by the consumers ”.
It has to be borne in mind that in the instant case husband of the complainant has signed on the document. It is pertinent to note in this regard the apology tendered by Mr. Antony Chakiath who had preferred appeal against the act of opposite party before higher authorities. The copy of the said appeal memorandum is produced and marked as Ext. A3 in the Forum. In Paragraph C of the said document it is tacitly admitted that there was two motors at the time of inspection in the shed. The next paragraph is devoted to the Air conditioner and he says that the same was stored in such a way as to save space. One can hardly believe such an explanation where the wall is cut to provide a hole to accommodate an old Ac. Therefore we are constrained to dismiss the above averments and do arrive at the conclusion that the motor was used for water supply for domestic purpose and the air conditioner that was installed therein was in functional state and electricity was consumed unauthorizedly to run those equipments. It was also alleged that there was a service station conducted by the consumer directly or indirectly because they have found a tube light in working condition. When opposite party was examined as DW1 in the Forum, it was deposed by him that in the mahasar it is stated that a service station was being conducted in the shed because inspection team had found soldering iron and some other old articles. When the question was repeated in another form, he stated that there was a multi purpose plug point found in the room. He also fairly conceded that the articles found there were not enough to run a service centre. In view of the half hearted admission that there was not enough materials to conclude that a service station for electrical repairs was being conducted in the premises, it can be inferred that finding noted in the Mahasar in that respect is an over stretched inference which is divorced of realities.
6. Point No. ii. On an overall appreciation of evidence produced before us, we think opposite party has succeeded in proving that there was illegal extension and unauthorized load being connected in the premises. Therefore the only possible conclusion is that the opposite party is justified in issuing the impugned Ext. A1 bill. Accordingly we have no hesitation in dismissing this complaint.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 4th day of November 2011
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
