The complainant has an electrical connection as per consumer No.881, Kalpetta. The complainant is running a Flour Mill and has obtained sanction from the Electrical Inspector Wayanad for the installation of a 20 KVA 3 phase generator and the generator was installed. On 16.4.2004 the 2nd opposite party has inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared a mahasser. On 16.4.04, a notice was issued to the complainant stating that the complainant has connected unauthorized additional load and required the complainant to remove the unauthorized Contd.....2) 2 additional load. On receipt of the notice, the complainant submitted a reply to 2nd opposite parties stating the facts that 25 HP Motors and Coffee Roaster were not worked with the energy of KSEB and it was working from the supply of the generator. On 23..6.04 the complainant was issued a penal bill of Rs.43,200/- for the period of 5/02 to 4/04. The accompanying letter alleged that the complainants sanctioned load is 37 KW and the complainant has connected load of 54 KW. The complainant explaind that he has not connected any unauthorized additional load. The power used for 25 HP Motor and roaster are directly generated from the generator and is not connected to the main connection. The opposite party has no authority to collect charge for the power generated by the generation. So the complainant prays for an order declaring the bill for Rs.43,200/- as null and void and directing the opposite party not to disconnect the power supply. 2. The opposite party appeared and filed version. The opposite party state that the consumer No.881 under Electrical Section, Kalpetta is for Industrial purposes. It is admitted that the complainant has obtained sanction from the Electrical Inspector Wayanad for installation of a 20 LVA 3 phase diesel generator. But as per Se.44 of Indian Electricity Supply Act, sanction should be obtained form KSEB. The complainant has not obtained this sanction. So, the installation of generator by the complainant is highly irregular and illegal. On 16.4.02 the premises of the complainant was inspected by the officials of KSEB and an un authorized additional load of 29 KW was found. On notice, the complainant has reported that the unauthorized additional loan was removed. A penal bill for Rs.30,333 was issued to the complainant on 8.5.2002. The premises was again inspected on16.4.2004 and it was found that unauthorized additional load of 20 KW which was stated to have been removed by the consumer is still existing in the premises. The argument of the complainant that 25 HP motor and Cofee roaster were not operated with energy of KSEB but with the supply from the generator is not correct. An 20 HP motor cannot be worked with a 20 KVA generator. On the inspection it was found that the connection to the motor was taken through a change over switch which was connected to the KSEB's installation also, this is clearly mentioned in the site mahazer prepared on 16.4.04. Rule does not permit a consumer to use electricity supplied by the board and electricity generated by the generator simultaneously in a premise for a portion of the load. The board could not accord sanction for the installation of generator in the premises of consumer No.881 wherein the service connection of Board exists. So, the penal bill of Rs.43,200/- for the unauthorized additional load of 20 KW for the period of 17.5.2002 to 2/2004 issued to the complainant is as per rules and the petition is to be dismissed. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of complainant and documents were marked as Ext. A1 to Ext. A7. Opposite party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext. B1 to Ext. B6. 3. The issues to be considered are as follows: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief. 4. Point No.1 The documents produced by the complainant do not prove their case. Ext. A1 is the Mahazer produced by the opposite party Ext. A2 is the notice given by the opposite party to the complainant Ext. A4 also is the notice given by the opposite party to the complainant Ext. A5 is the disputed bill. Ext. A6 is the sanction of Electrical inspector for installing the generator. Ext. A3 is the explanation given by the complainant to the opposite party. This documents also does not show that the Motor and Coffee roaster was worked using the energy from the generator. On the other hand, the documents produced by the opposite party substantiate their case. The opposite parties version that there was unauthorised additional load is supported by Ext. A1 in which the complainant represented that the unauthorised additional load was removed Ext. B2 is the penal bill for that un authorised additional load, which the complainant has paid already. Ext. B3 is the spot mahazer prepared by the opposite party on 16.4.2004 in which they have stated that the generator was connected to the electric connection through a change over switch in such a way that the coffee roaster and pulvarisor can be worked both by the energy produced by the generator and the energy of KSEB. This is supported by the evidence adduced by OPW1. B5 is the bill as per Ext. B3. The complainant has taken out a commission and the commission report shows that the generator is installed at the premise of M/s OTIPS Rice and Flour Mills of the complainant and it is connected to a chilly pulvarisor unit installed in a separate building named OTIPS chilly plant through a change over switch. This chilly pulvarisor unit runs with a 25 HP Motor. From the Commission report also, it is clear that the coffee roaster and chilly pulvarisor are connected in such a way that they can be run by energy produced by the generator and energy supplied by KSEB. The commission report does not affirm that the chilly Pulavisor and coffee roaster are worked by energy from the generator alone. On the other hand, as per the commission report the coffee roaster and chilly pulvarisor can not be worked simultaneously by the energy supplied by the generator. One of the main contention of the opposite party is that sanction is do be obtained by the consumer from the KSEB for the installation of generator. As per Ext. A6 before granting sanction, power allocation should be done by the KSEB for the total connected load including the load to be fed from the generator. In this case power allocation also is not done for the total connected load. For the above said reason, it is found that there is un authorised additional load in the complainant institution and the Ext. A5 bill is based on that. So the Point No.1 is found in favour of the opposite party. 5. Point: No.2 : As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party. The point No.2 is also found in favour of the opposite party. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 11th August, 2008.
