KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.163/09 JUDGMENT DATED 23.4.2010 PRESENT SMT.VALSALASARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER 1. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical section,KSEB Kozhinjampara, Palakkad. 2. The Secretary, KSEB -- APPELLANTS Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. 3. The Executive Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Division, Chittoor,Palakkad. (By Adv.V.S.Vineethkumar) Vs. B.Kamarudeen, S/0 Bappuji Sahib, Pappan Challa, Nattukal P.O, -- RESPONDENTS Kozhinjampara, Palakkad. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALASARANGADHARAN,MEMBER This appeal is preferred from the order dated 22.1.2009 in CC.34/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties whereby the forum below cancelled the disputed bill and directed the opposite parties to adjust the said amount in future bills. 2. The case of the complainant is that he is a commercial consumer of the opposite parties and was paying the charges as per the tariff fixed. Complainant has once used the electric connection from the shop by way of extension to his dwelling house on experimental basis and on 6.2.07 APTS detected the unauthorized use of electricity and a penal bill for Rs.13,500/- was issued to him. According to the complainant it is issued without complying the provisions of electricity Act, 2003. In order to avoid disconnection he remitted the amount in 2 instalments. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are entitled to charge only 1 ½ times the tariff applicable for domestic connection. Hence he filed complaint before the forum. 3. The opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant was given electric connection to his shop building under commercial tariff VII B. The complainant subsequently constructed the dwelling house in connection with this commercial shop and applied for electric connection to his house and was waiting for electric connection under domestic tariff for a connected load of 1580 watts. On the suspecion of misuse of energy a surprise site inspection was conducted by the opposite parties and detected the unauthorized use of energy. On further inspection, it was found that the power meter connection at the shop was faulty and it was not according to the consumption. A site mahazer was prepared but the complainant’s son refused to sign the mahazer. After the inspection a penal bill for Rs.13,500/- was issued and this was as per rules and regulations of KSEB and there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the forum below in directing the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill for Rs.13,500/- and adjust the amount towards the future bills of the complainant/respondent is not sustainable either in law or in facts. He has submitted before us that the impugned bill was issued consequent to the detection of unauthorized use of energy by the APTS of the opposite parties. The learned counsel submitted before us that the complainant himself has admitted that he had taken connection from the shop by way of extension to his dwelling house though it is argued that it was on an experimental basis. Relying on Ext.B1, site mahazer the learned counsel invited our attention to the fact that the son of the complainant was convinced of the inspection and the preparation of the site mahazer. Though it can be argued by the complainant that he had remitted the cash deposit for obtaining connection to the residence, he was not expected to connect the service line without the permission of the Board. Thus, advancing the contention that the issuance of the bill was perfectly in accordance with the rules and regulations of KSEB he submitted before us that the appeal is to be allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the records, we find that a bill for Rs.13,500/- had been admittedly issued by the appellants. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the said bill was issued consequent to the detection of un-authorized use of electrical energy. It is also seen that a site mahazer was prepared which was marked as Ext.B1. It is to be noted that as soon as the bill was issued the complainant has requested for instalment facilities. On a perusal of Ext.B5, the letter given by the complainant to the second opposite party, it is clear that the complainant had requested for instalment facility only due to his financial difficulties. More over, the complainant has admitted that he had taken connection from his shop to the house temporarily. The forum below had observed that the fundamentals of Section 126 of Indian electricity Act, 2003 is not complied with. There was an unauthorized use of electricity by the consumer from the electricity supplied under commercial tariff . So, the assessment of electricity charges can be calculated under section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 126 (5 & 6) of the Electricity Act 2003 reads as follows:- (5) If the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorized use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months immediately preceding the date of inspection in case of domestic and agricultural services and for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of inspection for all other categories of services, unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. (6) The assessment under the section shall be made at a rate equal to one-and-half times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5) Explanation:- For the purposes of this section:- (a) “assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government or Board or licensee, as the case may be. Designated as such by the State Government; (b) “Unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity- (i) by any artificial means; or (ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority or licensee; or (iii) through a tampered meter; or (iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized. The Forum below cancelled the disputed bill and directed the opposite parties to adjust the amount paid by the complainant in future bills. The forum below cannot be justified in canceling the disputed bill. As per clause 5 & 6 of Section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003, the opposite parties should have issued a bill for un-authorized use of electricity for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of inspection and to charge the un authorized use at the rate of 1 ½ times the rate applicable in the relevant category because the consumer was given electric connection to his shop building under commercial tariff VII (B). Hence the finding of the forum below in canceling the disputed bill is liable to set aside. Misuse of energy is described in Regulation 50 (1) of the KeralaState electricity Board terms and conditions of supply 2005. Under Regulation 50 (5) & (6) it is specified as to how the charges for misuse of energy are to be calculated, wherein it is specified that unauthorized use of electricity (misuse of energy) the assessment shall be made at a rate equal to 1 ½ times rate applicable for the relevant category of services specified in subsection 5. As far as the present case is concerned the complainant was given the electricity connection for commercial purpose under tariff VII B and the said assessment can be made for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of inspection or detection of the misuse of energy or unauthorized use of electricity. Thus, in all respects the complainant can be made liable for payment of penal charges/additional charges for the aforesaid misuse or unauthorized use of energy as specified under Regulation 50 (5) & (6) of Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply 2005. Read with the Section 126 (5) & (6) of the Electricity Act, 2003. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in CC.34/07 is set aside. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill to the complainant for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of inspection at the rate of 1 ½ times the tariff applicable for the relevant category, that is, under commercial tariff VII (B). The opposite parties are directed to adjust the amount already remitted by the complainant against the disputed bill in the fresh bill to be issued to the complainant. As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs. VALSALASARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER | 
