Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Complainant is the consumer under opposite party for electricity supply and his consumer number is 454(3). the connection was provided to an old house. Complainant renovated the house. Since major part of the structure was renovated he was informed by authorities of Panchayat that new house number would be allotted. While so in January, 2006 some persons who stated they are from Anti Power Theft Squad conducted an inspection of the premises. Opposite party thereafter issued bill<br /> <br /> for Rs.27,035/- dated, 24-01-06. Complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer who ordered to pay Rs.9,000/-. Complainant remitted this amount. Complainant alleges that the bill issued is having no nexus with the consumption and is issued without any proper basis. Hence this complaint praying to set aside the bill dated, 24-01-2006 for Rs.27,035/- and to refund the amount already paid towards the bill and to pay compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 2. First opposite party file version for himself and on behalf of second opposite party. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable in law since the complainant has filed this complaint pending appeal filed by him before the deputy Chief engineer. That on 17-01-2006 Anti Power Theft Squad of Kerala State Electricity Board, made surprise inspection of the premises. It was detected that the original service connection of the complainant was unauthorisedly extended to a newly constructed double storied building. The complainant had varied all approved original installations. A site mahazar was prepared. Complainant had illegally extended his connection and an additional load of 3.265 KW was connected unauthorisedly. Hence a penal bill under Sec.50 (5) and (6) of Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005 was issued. The details of the bill is furnished. All other averments are denied as false. That complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Kozhikkode. As per the order of the Deputy Chief engineer complainant remitted Rs.9,012/- on 06-6-206. the appeal is still pending. The bill issued is proper and legal. Complainant is liable to pay the same.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by both sides. Exts.A1 and A2 marked for complainant. Ext.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether the complaint is maintainable.<br /> (ii) Whether opposite party is deficient in service.<br /> (iii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. Point (i):-<br /> <br /> It was argued on behalf of opposite party that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant has already filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief engineer challenging the bill dated, 24-01-2006 for Rs.27,035/-. It is submitted that complainant has no right to initiate parallel proceedings to redress his grievances. We have given careful consideration to this argument. It was further submitted by opposite party that the appeal has been disposed of and the disputed bill has been revised by the order of Deputy Chief Engineer dated, 30-01-08. Ext.B2 is this order of the proceedings before the Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext.B2 is seen passed upon the appeal petition filed by complainant on 27-01-2006. The bill challenged is the bill dated, 24-01-2006 for Rs.27,035/- which is the very same bill which is directly and substantially in issue in this complaint. As per Ext.B2 order Deputy Chief Engineer has directed to issue revised bill at 3 KW load for 60 days at 1.5 times rate and to realize the same as per rules. That no interest need be levied for the period during which appeal was pending. Ext.A1 is the revised bill issued as per Ext.B2 order. This revised bill is for Rs.13,500/-. Ext.B2 and Ext.A1 proves that the issue has already been adjudicated by an authority competent to decide the same. The Hon'ble National Commission in 2008 CTJ 837 (CP) NCDRC Jharkhand State Electricity Board Vs. Anwar Ali decided on 10-4-2008 has held, “against Assessment Order passed under Sec.126 of Electricity Act, a consumer has an option either to file appeal under Sec.127 of the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer for a by filing complaint. He has to select either of the remedy.” The disputed bill herein has been issued under Regulation 50((5) & (6) of the Kerala State Electricity Board Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. Regulation 50 (10) states as follows: “Any person aggrieved by a final order of assessment under sub clause (5) & (6) above may within thirty days of the said order, prefer an appeal in Form No.18 accompanied by the fee at the rate ordered by the Commission from time to time to the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Electrical Circle concerned”. Thus complainant has already opted and availed his remedy of redressing his grievance by filing an appeal to the Deputy Chief engineer who is authorised and competent to entertain the appeal. In such circumstances, this Forum cannot adjudicate upon the question that has already been decided by a competent authority. For these reasons we hold that this complaint is not maintainable. We do not think that it is necessary to go into the merits of the case any further.<br /> <br /> 6. In the result we dismiss the complaint and made no orders as to costs.<br /> <br /> Dated this 3rd day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice<br /> dated, 06-02-08 for Rs.13,500/- issued by 1st opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice<br /> dated, 24-01-06 for Rs.27,035/- issued by 1st opposite party<br /> to complainant.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B3<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Site Mahazar dated, prepared by Ismail Kallingal,<br /> Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Alathiyur. <br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the proceedings No.APTS/DCE/KDE/AA/53/06/1612<br /> dated. 30-01-08 of the Deputy Chief Engineer, APTS., Kozhikkode.<br /> Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the Letter dated, 17-01-06 from Asst. Engineer,<br /> ATPS Northern Region, Kozhikkode to Asst. Engineer,<br /> Electrical Section, Alathiyur.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER