By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the Managing Partner of the Leo Digital Printers and Colour Lab, Mananthavady which is running in the building No. 202 in Ward No. 13 of the Mananthavady Panchayath and the room is having electricity connection vide No. 5685- A4 7/14. The electric connection stands in the name of K.P. Basheer, K.T. Complex, Mananthavady, the owner of the building. The income from the shop is the only source in the livelihood of the Complainant. The tariff alloted to the Complainant LT 7B of the Mananthavady section. The complaint is the beneficiary of the said connection from the 23.9.2009 onwards. While so on 21.01.2010 the Sub Engineer of 1st Opposite Party made a visit to the premises and obtained the signature of the staff in the blank papers stating that it is for the purpose of providing his inspection. Thereafter the provisional bill for the amount of Rs.47,739/- was issued along with the notice and mahazar copy stating that the consumption in the above consumer number is excess than the permitted unit under LT 7B tariff. Therefore the 1st Opposite Party issued a final bill dated 20.2.2010 confirming the provisional bill and demanded to pay the above said amount. The notice issued on 27.2.2010 thereby the Opposite Party committed drastic deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Therefore it is prayed not to disconnect the electric connection provided to the premises in consumer No. 5685- A4 7/14 of the Complainant, to withdraw the additional bill of Rs.47,739/-, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
2. Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version. In the version Opposite Parties admitted that the electric connection No.5685 under electrical section Mananthavady was provided to Sri. Basheer. K.P, K.T Complex, Mananthavady with a connected load of 180 W in LT 7B tariff. There is no document to show that the petitioner is enjoying the connection from 23.09.2009 onwards. The premises of the consumer No.5685 was inspected by the Sub Engineer on 21.1.2010. The inspection revealed that the consumer has connected and used equipment beyond the sanctioned load of 1 KW. The total load of the installation was found to be 7 KW. Details of electrical equipments connected as clearly furnished in the mahazar report prepared during the course of inspection. The findings were fully convinced to Sri. Biju who was present during the time of inspection under proper acknowledgment. So the provisional assessment amount to Rs.47,739/- was served to the consumer on 28.1.2010 with a detailed notice. The Opposite Party done the above act as per the act and rules of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 and the amount claimed against the petitioner is the actual liability to the board. Hence it is prayed that to dismiss the complaint with cost and compensatory cost to the Opposite Parties.
3. Considering the complaint and the version following points are to be considered.
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
Relief and cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove Complainant's case, the Complainant has filed his chief affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5 documents. In the chief affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 series are the bill, notice and copy of the mahazar issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant demanding him to pay Rs.47,739/-. Ext.A2 is the copy of the notice issued to the Complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of the complaint submitted to the Opposite Party by the Complainant. Ext.A4 series are the bills issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of the application form submitted by Basheer. K.P, K.T. Complex Mananthavady to the Opposite Party to enhance his connected load from 180 W to 4380 W. Opposite Party also filed his chief affidavit and produced Ext.B1 to B5 documents. In the chief affidavit he stated as stated in the version Ext.B1 is the true copy of the application submitted by the K.P. Basheer, K.T. Complex Mananthavady to the Opposite Party. In the above application it is seen that Sri. K.P. Basheer owner of the building submitted an application to enhance the connected load in the above building from 180 W to 3760 W. Ext.B2 copy of the notice issued by the Opposite Party to the K.P. Basheer directing him to pay Rs.47,739/-. Ext.B3 is the copy of the application submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. Ext.B4 is the copy of the mahazar. Ext.B5 is the copy of the statement given by the Complainant before Opposite Party. Mr. Vincent .K Jose Assistant Engineer, PWD Electrical Section No.3, Medical College Campus, Kozhikode was appointed as Expert Commissioner in this matter. He was inspected the building on 10.8.2010 and filed his report stated that the actual total load connected to the installation comes to 4732W.
5. On perusing the above documents it is clear that the connection No.5685 is alloted to K.P. Basheer, K.T.Complex, Mananthavady and the Complainant is the beneficiary of the above connection. There is no evidence before us that the Complainant is the beneficiary of the said connection from 23.9.2009 onwards. It is clear that the connected load alloted to the building is 180 W. Ext.A5 shows that the K.P. Basheer has filed an application to enhance his connected load from 180 W to 4380W. Whereas Ext.B1 shows that the K.P. Basheer has filed an application to enhance 180W to 3760W. In the commissioner report he stated that the total connected load at the time of his inspection was 4732W. The connected load in Ext.A5, Ext.B1 and Ext.C1 are different. At the time of cross examination the Complainant admitted that he has disconnected air conditioner having 1800W before filing Ext.B1 that means at the time of inspection the AC was working. Excluding A.C as per the commissioner report the connected load was 4732W. At the time of cross examination the Complainant admitted that he has filed Ext.A5 (B1) to enhance his connected load and he admitted that KSEB officials have no enmity towards him. More over he admitted that there was more than permitted connected load at the time of inspection by the Sub Engineer on 21.1.2010. Hence we come to the conclusion that at the time of inspection there was more than permitted connected load calculating Ext.C1 report and the A.C already disconnected before filing Ext.B1. It comes nearly 7 KW at the time of inspection by the Sub Engineer. So the inspection done by the Sub Engineer and issuing the bill is as per the powers given by the Electricity Act. We do not find to interfere with the issuance of bill to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. Point No.1 decided accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is against the Complainant, we are not discussing point No.2 in detail.
In the above circumstance the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th November 2010.
Date of filing:27.02.2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Mani. M. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. M.S. Siva Rajan. Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1 series. Copy of Bill and Notice.
A2 series. Copy of Bill and Letter.
A3. Copy of complaint. dt:04.02.2010.
A4 series. Bill.
A5 series. Receipt.
C1. Commissioner Report.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Copy of Application Form.
B2. Copy of Letter. dt:20.02.2010.
B3. Copy of Complaint. dt:05.02.2010.
B4. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:21.01.2010.
B5. Copy of the Statement.
