CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM. Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No.76/09 Thursday, the 28th day of October, 2010 Petitioner : Johnson D, Vadasseril, Keezhukunnu, Collectorate, Kottayam. (Adv. Shibu Joseph) Vs. Opposite party : The Secretary, KSE Board, Vydutha Bhavan, Thiruvanathapuram. 2) The Asst.Exe.Engineer, Electrical Section, Kottayam East. ORDER Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Case of the petitioner, filed on 11-3-2009, is as follows. Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board with vide consumer No.2223. Connection to the petitioner’s premises is a three phase electricity connection. On 15/1/09 Sub Engineer attached to the Kottayam East Electrical Section and men under him inspected the premises of the petitioner and prepared a Mahazar on the basis of inspection. On 17/1/09 a demand notice cum disconnection notice was issued to the petitioner’s son for an amount of Rs.140317/- and directed him to remit bill amount. Subsequently on 19/1/09 electric connection to the petitioner’s premises was disconnected. According to the petitioner the disconnection notice is devoid of formalities contemplated under the Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005. On 22/1/09 petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.77,748/- and on the same day electric connection was restored. The allegation of the opposite party is that petitioner is using the electricity for unauthorized purpose. Petitioner says that there is no unauthorized use of electricity or else tarrif misuse. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in issuing additional bill for an exorbitant amount of Rs. 140317 and the subsequent bill for an amount of Rs.22,886/- is a clear deficiency in service. So petitioner prays for cancellation of the demand notice dtd 17/1/09 for an amount of Rs.140317/- and notice dtd 26/2/09 for an amount of Rs.22886/-. Petitioner claims refund of the amount remitted by the petitioner with 12% interest, petitioner claims Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The sanctioned tariff of the petitioner’s three phase electric connection is LT-IA domestic and the sanctioned load is 8006 watts. During surprise inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner by the APTS on 15/1/09, it is found that the total connected load in the premises of the petitioner is 16 KW. Accordingly the tarrif was changed to LT-7A commercial. During inspection site mahazar was prepared in the presence of son of the petitioner. From the site mahazar it is clear that the first floor is arranged with music recording instruments and lights and is seen that the first floor is used for sound recording. Act of the petitioner amounts to theft of electricity under section 135 (e) of the electricity act 2007. In case of electricity electric connection should be disconnected immediately after detecting the same. Considering the humanitarian element as per the request of the son of the petitioner electricity was reconnected subsequently. In such cases of theft there is no relevance in mentioning a last date in the bill. On 22/1/09 petitioner approached the Asst. Engineer of the opposite party and expressed his interest in remitting 50% of the challenged bill for filing appeal under Section 127 of Electricity Act 2003. Asst.Engineer made arrangements and reconnected the supply on 22/1/09. Opposite party issued normal bimonthly bills amounting to Rs.41,734/-, on 26/2/09, incorporating minimum charges for the unauthorised additional load. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and the affidavit of one witness. Ext.A1 to Ext.A6 document on the side of the petitioner. Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 document on the side of opposite party. Point No.I Petitioner alleges deficiency on the side of opposite party on two aspects they are (a) Issuing a bill without following provisions of Kerala Electricity Supply code 2005 (b) Issuing additional bills for an amount of Rs.1,40317/- dtd 17/1/09 and amount of Rs.22,886/- dtd 26/2/09 Petitioner produced a copy of disputed bill dtd 17/1/09 for an amount of Rs.1,40317/- the said document is marked as Ext.A2. It is true that there is no mentioning of any due date of payment and date of disconnection. According to the opposite party since there is theft of electricity, opposite party has every right to disconnect the electric supply at the time of detection of theft. So, there is no need for mentioning any date of disconnection. As per Section 135(e) of the electricity Act, Use of electricity for purpose other than for which the usage of electricity is authorised will come under the term theft. So if the opposite party establishes that their is theft of electricity they have every right to disconnect the electric supply after detecting the same. So, in our view if the opposite party establishes ‘theft’ non mention of the meter disconnection in Ext.A2 will not become a ‘deficiency’ in service. The other question to be decided is whether there is misuse of energy. According to the petitioner they have not misused the energy. Opposite partys definite case is that based on the inspection conducted by the APTS on 15/1/09 it was seen that petitioner has unauthorized connected load in his premises without permission of the Board. During the inspection it is seen that a sound recording studio is functioning in the first floor of the petitioner’s building in the name and style as “Oshin Green”. Site mahazar prepared by the opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext.B1. Petitioner has no dispute with regard to preparation of Ext. B1 mahazar. The Sub Engineer of the opposite party, who prepared the site mahazar, filed an affidavit of the person, who prepared the same. Petitioner has not cross examined the witness. From the site mahazar it can be seen that inspection team found some energy consuming devices connected to the system of electricity board. Further more from Ext.B1 mahazar it can be seen that some sound recording equipment were shown to be connected to the board system. The site mahazar was acknowledged by the son of the petitioner one Baiju Johnson. Petitioner has a definite case that there was some enemity between the petitioner and the opposite party that in term resulted in the inspection and issuance of disputed bill. Petitioner miserably failed to produce any cogent evidence to substantiate the same. Further more it is seen that the inspection is conducted by the vigilance wing of the electricity board. Opposite party produced meter reading register of the petitioner and the same is marked as Ext.B3. From Ext.B3 it can be seen that their is high energy consumption for the petitioner from October 2008 to April 2010. So, In our view the consumption pattern of the petitioner is a proof to show that the petitioner is consuming huge unit of electricity other than the allotted 8006 watts connected load. So, In our view the petitioner is misusing the energy for a commercial purpose. Petitioner’s counsel argued that as per the decision reported in 2009(4)KLT SN 21(C.No.23) the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala pronounced its verdict stating that unless there is evidence to show that the energy consuming devices in the establishment were connected to the system, the equipment cannot be taken into account for calculating the connected load. Here from Ext.B1 mahazar it is clear that the equipments were shown connected to the Board system. In our view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing disputed bills dated 17/1/09 and 26/2/09, so point no.1 is found accordingly. Point No.2 In view of the finding point no.1 petition is dismissed. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case no costs and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of October, 2010 Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- Appendix Documents of the petitioner 1) Ext.A1-Copy of letter dtd 17/1/09 issued by the Asst.Engineer to Baiju Johnson 2) Ext.A2-Copy of bill dtd 17/1/09 3) Ext.A3-Copy of the calculation statement 4) Ext.A4-Copy of mahazar dtd 15/1/09 5) Ext.A5-Copy of bill dtd 22/1/09 6) Ext.A6-Copy of bill dtd 26/2/09 Documents of the opposite party 1) Ext.B1-Mahazar dtd 15/1/09 2) Ext.B2-Copy of letter dtd 17/1/09 3) Ext.B2(a)-Bill dtd 17/1/09 4) Ext.B3-Copy of meter reading region of consumer No.2223 By Order, Senior Superintendent. S/4cs
| | [HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas] Member[HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan] Member | | 
