IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2010.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

C.C.No.50/09

Between:

G. Yohannan,

Chandravelil Padinjattethil House,

Pandalam Thekkekara Village,

@  Principal, Mar Ivaniyos ITC,

Moonnukallu,

Seethathodu,

Kumaramperoor.

(By Adv. Johny. K. George)                                                            .....       Complainant.

And:

1. Asst. Engineer,

KSEB, Electrical Section,

Kakkad, Seethathodu,

Chittar.

2. Secretary,

KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.                                          .....       Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member):

                        The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from Forum.

                        2. The facts of the complaint is as follows:  The complainant is an educational institution named as Mar Ivanious ITC, represented by its principal.  The complainant had taken an electric connection with Con.No.4227 from Kakkad Electric Section of opposite parties.  On 20.2.09 the 1^st opposite party had inspected the institution and perused the unused machines used for demonstrating the educational purpose.  After that on 25.2.09 the opposite parties had issued a penal bill for an amount of Rs.21,435/- demanding to remit the bill amount on or before 11.3.09, otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected.  The opposite parties have issued the penal bill under commercial tariff.  The complainant is not liable to pay the illegal bill issued by the opposite parties.  Therefore the complainant filed this complaint for set aside the bill dated 25.2.09 issued by the opposite parties and for directing the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant and for getting the cost of the complainant from the opposite parties.  The complainant prays for granting the reliefs.

                        3.  The 1^st opposite party has filed a common version for 2^nd opposite party also with the following contentions:  The opposite parties have admitted the electric connection taken by the complainant.  The authorised connected load of the complainant was 40 KW and billed under LT VI A tariff.  The KSEB squad made an inspection at the premises of the complainant and detected an unauthorised load of 12 KW and a site mahazar was prepared and on the basis of the inspection penal bill was issued.  It is perceived during the inspection that the institution is conducting welding courses and the prevalence of two welding machine at the premises are exclusively used for this purpose.  On 4.4.09 the complainant was afforded with a opportunity for hearing against the provisional assessment and the counsel for the complainant appeared and made an averment that the 2 Nos. of 18 KW welding machine figured in item No.8 of the site mahazar was exclusively used for imparting technical know-how to the pupils about the internal functioning of the machine and kept as dormant in all respects.  The complainant has been advised to file an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer against the final order of the 1^st opposite party, but he declined to do so.  The provisional invoice was issued as per Sec.126 of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 under LT VI A tariff, which is not commercial on the basis of the site mahazar prepared by the inspection squad.  They have issued the penal bill legally and the complainant is liable to remit the amount.  Therefore the opposite parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

                        4. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration:

(1)   Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for

in the complaint?

(3)   Relief & Costs?

           5. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and one document filed by the principal of the complainant institution.  On the basis of the proof affidavit the document produced by the complainant is marked as Ext.A1.  For the opposite parties Asst. Exe. Engineer of Electric Division, Vadasserikkara has filed a proof affidavit along with 6 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit documents produced by the opposite parties is marked as Exts.B1 to B6.  After closure of the evidence, both sides heard.

            6.  Point Nos.1 to 3:-  The complainant’s case is that the complainant is an educational institution which availed an electric connection from the opposite parties Kakkad Sub Division.  On 20.02.09 the 1^st opposite party inspected the institution and thereafter on 25.2.09 he had issued a penal bill for an amount of Rs.21,435/- demanding to remit the amount on or before 11.3.09 otherwise the electric connection will be disconnected.  According to the complainant, the issuance of this penal bill is illegal and is liable to be dismissed, hence filed this complaint for getting the reliefs sought for in the complaint. 

            7. In order to prove the complainant’s case the principal of the complainant institution has filed a proof affidavit and and the document produced is marked as Ext.A1.  Ext.A1 is the copy of penal bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 25.2.09 for an amount of Rs.21,435/-.

           8. The opposite parties contended that they had provided the electric connection under LT VI A tariff with a connected load of Rs.40 KW to the complainant.  At the time of inspection the opposite parties have detected that the consumer is using connected load of 52 KW.  On the basis of the detection of unauthorised connected load they have issued penal bill as per Sec.126 of Electricity Act and the complainant is liable to pay the bill amount. 

            9.  In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties the Asst. Exe. Engineer of Vadasserikkara Sub Division has filed a proof affidavit and the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B6.  Ext.B1 is the details of the complainant’s electric connection.  Ext.B2 is the copy of site mahazar prepared by the 1^st opposite party on 20.2.09 after inspecting the complainant’s premises.  Ext.B3 is the copy of bill issued to the complainant on 25.2.09.  Ext.B4 is the calculation sheet for the issuance of penal bill to the complainant.  Ext.B5 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Asst. Engineer, Kakkad Section.  Ext.B6 is the copy of hearing report conducted at the office of Asst. Engineer, Kakkad regarding the complaint against the penal bill issued to the complainant on 20.2.09. 

            10. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an educational institution and the current was used only for conducting the institution.  Ext.A1 penal bill was issued on the basis of the detection of unauthorised connected load in the complainant’s premises at the time of inspection of the opposite parties squad.  On a perusal of Ext.B2 site mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer, all the equipments seen were listed.  But it was not noted that whether all these equipments are using or functioning at the time of inspection.  The complainant’s allegation is that the machines are not using and it is kept for educational purpose to demonstrate the students.  The use of machines seen in the premises was also explained to the 1^st opposite party by the representative of the complainant.  But the opposite parties ignored the real facts and have issued the exorbitant bill illegally and without any basis.  In Ext.B6 hearing report, the complainant’s contention against the bill is stated as follows:- “ Item No.8#194; ImWn¨ncn¡p¶ shÂUnwKv sajo³ (2x18KVA) Ifn Hsc®w hnZym#176;nIfpsS ]T\mhiy¯n\mbn Sn sajosâ B´cnI `mK§ImWn¨psImSp¡phm\mbn D]tbmK iq\yamb sajo³ BIp¶p.  BbXv sshZypXn sse\n IWIvSv sN¿m¯ Ahnembncp¶p.  {]kvXpX sajosâ connected load Bb 18 KVA sam¯w load #194; \n¶pw Ipdhp sNbvXm Sn ]o\ _n \ne\nev¡p¶XÓ.  The opposite parties have no dispute regarding the fact that the complainant is an educational institution.  They have no case that the complainant is using the power for any productive purpose (production of materials) or any commercial use.  They have not produced any evidence for proving the unauthorised consumption of current by the complainant.

                        11. On a perusal of Ext.B4 calculation statement, the fixed charge from 3/08 to 2/09 was also added in the Ext.A3 penal bill.  The opposite parties have no case that the complainant is not paying the usual bills issued by them.  Moreover the duty charge is calculated every month in the calculation statement.  In total, Ext.B4 is vague and the basis of calculation is not clear.  From the over all facts and circumstances of this case, it is clear that the issuance of Ext.A1 penal bill is illegal and unjustifiable.  If the machines are seen in a connected position and if it is in a working condition it should have been recorded in Ext.B2 mahazar.  But it was not seen in Ext.B2 mahazar. In the circumstances, Ext.A1 penal bill issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is illegal and is without any basis.  Hence it is liable to be set aside and the complaint is not liable to pay the bill amount.  From the above discussions, complainant’s prayer can be allowed.

                        12. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the Ext.A1 penal bill dated 25.2.09 for Rs.21,435/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand Four hundred and thirty five only) issued by the opposite parties to the complainant is hereby set aside and the complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) from the opposite parties as cost.  The opposite parties are directed to pay the cost to the complainant within on e month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest at the rate of 9% per annum will be paid to the above amount till the payment from today.

                        Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19^th day of March, 2010.

                                                                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                        C. Lathika Bhai,

                                                                                                                               (Member)

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)                    :           (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                    :           (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1       :  Photocopy of the bill dated 25.2.09 for Rs.21,435/- issued by the opposite parties   

               to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1        :  Details of the complainant’s electric connection. 

B2        :  Photocopy of site mahazar. 

B3        : Photocopy of bill dated 25.2.09 issued by the opposite parties to the  

              complainant. 

B4        : Photocopy of the calculation sheet for the issuance of penal bill issued by the 

              opposite parties to the complainant. 

B5        :  Photocopy of the complaint dated 13.3.09 filed by the complainant before the 

               Asst. Engineer, Kakkad Section. 

B6        :  Photocopy of hearing report dated 20.2.09 conducted by the office of Asst.   

               Engineer, Kakkad.

                                                                                                                        (By Order)

                                                                                                               Senior Superintendent

Copy to:  (1)  G. Yohannan, Chandravelil Padinjattethil House, Pandalam Thekkekara   

                        Village,

(2)   The Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Section, Kakkad, Seethathodu,

           Chittar.

(3)   The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

(4)   The stock file.