By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The averments in the complaint are that the complainant is the consumer of respondents-1 and 2 vide consumer No.5669009387. The complainant institution is the Head Post Office, Thrissur. As the part of modernization more computers have installed in the post office during 2007 November. So the complainant applied to get additional load and remitted Rs.525/- on 9.11.07 at concerned section office. During pendency of the application for the additional load the connected computers have been started to work from 1.12.07. It was done so because no action was taken by KSEB even after submitting application for additional load. On 7.2.08 the meter of post office has got damaged and the 1st respondent office inspected the same and directed to remit Rs.4113/-. A new meter has installed also. The respondents issued a penal bill dated 16.2.08 for unauthorized additional load for Rs.1,55,040/-. Since the complainant has submitted application for additional load and inspection has been conducted by KSEB the respondents have no right to issue a penal bill like this. So the said bill is liable to be cancelled. Later another penal bill has been issued by respondents in February 2008 for Rs.42248/-. This bill is also illegal. In March 2008 another penal bill for Rs.89,479/- has been issued by respondents dt. 11.3.08. All these penal bills are illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of respondents-1 to 3 are that there is no authorization produced to show the locus standi of complainant to file the complaint. It is incorrect that the complainant has submitted application for additional connected load. The complainant has applied for power allocation. The complainant has remitted application fees and process fees. Only after depositing this amount the Board can verify whether the required connected load should be taken from the existing line. If any change is necessary like extending line, installing transformer etc. the complainant is liable to bear the expenses. The complainant has paid Rs.525/- for power allocation. When processing the same it was found that the existing transformer has low efficiency and new transformer is necessary. The complainant is liable to bear the expenses for installation of new transformer. An estimate has been prepared and asked the complainant to deposit Rs.1,89,950/-. But the complainant refused to do the same. Notices were sent but not complied. So no power allocation has been done so far. So the act of complainant in using additional load without sanction is illegal. The connected load allotted is only 18 KW. On 8.2.08 the officials of Board inspected the premises and it was found that the complainant is using 55.312 KW load unauthorisedly. So a site mahazar has prepared. Thus the penal bill for Rs.1,55,040/- issued for additional load of 38 KW. The other averments in the complaint are untrue and denied. It was informed to the complainant that without regularization the complainant is consuming the energy and so they will liable to pay penal charges. The demand bills issued were legal and the complainant is liable to pay the same. Hence dismiss.
3. The 4th respondent filed statement by adopting the version of other respondents.
4. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence adduced consists of Exts. P1 to P7, Ext. C1 and Exts. R1 to R8.
6. Points: The complaint is filed to cancel Exts. P4, P6, and P7 bills. It is the case of complainant that since they have applied to get regularization of load to KSEB they are entitled to use the additional load required. But the load was not regularized and so the respondents issued penal bills demanding huge amount. This complaint is to cancel those penal bills issued by KSEB.
7. The complainant is the Head Post Office, Thrissur and as a part of the modernization some more computers were installed and the complainant wanted to function the same. In order to that the complainant applied to get regularization of load. It is the case of complainant that Ext. P1 is the application given to KSEB for additional load. In Ext. P1 it is stated that consequent on the modernization of their offices the present consumption is 48 KW. Therefore it is requested that action may kindly be taken to enhance the connected load of this office. It is the case of respondents that this is an application given by complainant for power allocation. In Ext. P1 the subject stated as request for power allocation c/o. Thrissur HPO complex. But the wordings in the letter show request for enhancement of connected load. There is endorsement about remittance of Rs.525/- at KSEB office as processing charge for power allocation. It is the case of KSEB that the complainant did not submit any application for regularization of load but they submitted application for power allocation. As per Ext. P1 it is seen true. In Ext. P2 also it is stated by complainant that application for enhanced power allocation has already been submitted by this office to KSEB office. So from the records it is clear that the complainant was under the impression that power allocation and enhancement of additional load are self same. It is their case that after submitting Ext. P1 they have waited for some time but no action was taken by KSEB and so they started to function computers etc.
8. It can be seen that on 9.11.07 Rs.525/- was remitted by complainant at KSEB office. Since the complainant is a Head Post Office, a public institution it was the duty of KSEB to take appropriate action immediately and require the complainant to submit application for additional load. But the KSEB without considering the functions of post office waited till the meter became damaged due to high voltage.
9. The respondents stated in their counter in detail that the complainant submitted application for power allocation and not additional load. If that be so they should enquire the same immediately since the complainant institution is a Head Post Office. When the meter became damaged the KSEB officials conducted routine examination in the premises and issued Ext. P4 penal bill. According to them they have issued Ext. P4 as per law for unauthorized consumption energy. It is true that the Board has right to issue penal bill for unauthorized consumption. But the circumstances in which Ext. P4 was issued are not justifiable. It was the duty of the KSEB to require the complainant to submit application for regularization of load and to make enquiry and demand payment of sufficient fees. If drawing of line or installation of transformer is necessary it should be convinced to complainant in time properly. It was not done. The complainant was under the impression that they have applied for additional load and the respondents inspected the premises and the complainant has remitted the required fee. It was the KSEB to convince the things in detail.
10. The respondents produced Exts. R1 to R8 documents in support of their contentions. As per Ext. R5 only on 25.4.08 the respondents required to remit an amount of Rs.1,89,950/- towards estimate cost for distribution works, for drawing line and installing transformer. Ext. R3 is the copy of letter issued to complainant dt. 25.4.08 by 1st respondent to complainant.
11. The complainant wanted to cancel the penal bills issued by KSEB. The circumstances leading for issuance of those bills were already discussed. In the circumstances the respondents have no right to impose penalty for the consumption done by complainant. They can take normal charges from the complainant without penal charge. In the circumstances the complainant is not liable to pay the penal bills issued by respondents.
12. It is the case of complainant that they have remitted Rs.525/- for getting regularization of additional load. But it is not done so far. As stated by respondents in Ext. R3 and Ext. R5 expenses are necessary for distribution works, for drawing line and installing one number transformer for getting additional load. As per Ext. R2 sanction is accorded to an estimate amounting to Rs.1,89,950/- for the work of construction of 11 KV line 45 mtr. and for installation of 100 KVA transformer one number. The complainant is bound to remit this amount to KSEB for additional load. As per Ext. C1 connected load at the time of inspection of commissioner was 42 KW. But the allotted load was 18 KW. According to the respondents the additional load seen used was 55.312 KW load and that more required load was 38 KW. So the complainant is liable to remit Ext. R2 amount for regularization of load.
13. In the result the complaint is allowed and Ext. P4, P6 and P7 penal bills issued are cancelled and the respondents are directed to issue fresh bills for the consumption without penal charges. The complainant is directed to remit Ext. R2 amount for getting the regularization of additional load. Comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of March 2012.
