BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 19/10/2011
Date of Order : 31/07/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 575/2011
Between
C.A. Joseph, | :: | Complainant |
Cheethaparambil House, GTRRA 162, Vaduthala, Kochi – 23. |
| (By authorised person) |
And
Assistant Executive Engineer, | :: | Opposite Party |
K.S.E.B., Pachalam, Kochi – 12. |
| (Party-in-person) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant is conducting a flour mill along with cottage industry manufacturing sweets and food stuffs. He is a consumer of the opposite party. On 03-09-2011, the complainant was served with a bill to the tune of Rs. 1,612/-. The opposite party has over written in the bill and the amount thus shown has become 3,142/-. In the next bill also, the opposite party over wrote the computer bill as Rs. 2,902/- instead of Rs. 1,454/-. Both the bills were issued not in tune with the actual consumption of the complainant. The opposite party has levied an excess amount of Rs. 1,530/- in the bill dated 03-09-2011. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the amount together with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows : -
Unauthorized additional load was consumed in the premises of the complainant and action was taken as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant was served with a provisional invoice for Rs. 20,698/- dated 29-08-2011 along with a covering letter which also stated that he will be charged at penal rates till regularization/removal of unauthorised additional load. The complainant filed objection against the provisional demand before the opposite party and the opposite party passed orders as per Section 126 (3) of the Electricity Act. On 03-09-2011, the complainant had filed Appeal against the order before the Appellate Authority the order in the appeal is awaited. On the basis of the interim direction from this Forum, the complainant is now paying only for the authorised portion leaving out the penal charges for the unauthorised portion. The complainant is neither removing the unauthorised load nor regularizing the same. The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The authorised person of the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A6 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite party. Heard the authorised representative of the complainant and the opposite party who appeared in person.
4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?
5. During the proceedings in this Forum, vide order in I.A. No. 608/2011 dated 20-10-2011, this Forum directed the opposite party not to disconnect the electricity connection of the complainant and the complainant was directed to remit the original amount as per the computer bills. Both the parties complied with the above direction.
6. According to the complainant, the opposite party issued Ext. A1 bill to the tune of Rs. 20,698/- on the basis of Ext. A2 site mahazar. The complainant maintains that the assessment of connected load as per Ext. A2 site mahazar is not on the basis of the definition of connected load as per the Kerala State electricity Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005. On the contrary, the opposite party contended that the entire load of the machineries are to be calculated and the same is to be regularised on the basis of Ext. A2 mahazar. According to the opposite party, on the basis of Ext. A2 mahazar only, they have issued Ext. A1 bill and the complainant is liable to pay the amount.
6. The definition of connected load as per the Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005 reads as follows :
“ 'Connected Load' means the sum of rated capacities in terms of kW or kVA of all connected energy consuming devices in the consumer's installation. For the purpose of levy of any charges or tariffs or determining connected load, 5 amps/15 amps plugs with no appliance connected, shall be treated as 60 W/500 W respectively. If any equipment is connected to a plug point, equipment's load alone shall be considered. Load of protection equipment shall not be considered for assessing the connected load if the same is connected to standby generator. In case of HT and EHT connections, the contract demand shall be treated as the connected load.”
On going through the definition of connected load, it can be seen that the opposite party has issued Ext. A1 in violation of the above provision. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 assessment. The opposite party is at liberty to issue a fresh bill on the basis of the definition of connected load as stated above. If any excess connected load is found the regularisation of the connected load shall be on that basis alone. The order in I.A. is made absolute.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the letter dt. 29-08-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the site mahazar dt. 26-08-2011 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the Order No. DB41/VDLA-AE/11-12 dt. 30-09-2011. |
“ A4 | :: | Copy of the consumer bill dt. 03-09-2011 |
“ A5 | :: | Copy of the consumer bill dt. 04-10-2011 |
“ A6 series | :: | Copy of tax invoice dt. 06-06-2007 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
Depositions :- |
|
|
PW1 | :: | Antony Jaison Jose – authorised person of the complainant. |
=========
