PRESENT:-

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

SHRI. M.  V. VISWANATHAN                 : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.  M.K. ABDULLA SONA               :  MEMBER

     APPELLANT

1.          The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, KSEB,

Meenangadi P.O.,

Kalpetta, Wayanad.

2.          The Secretary,

Vydhyuthi Bhavan,

Pattom, Trivandrum.

              (Rep. by Adv.  Sri. S. Balachandran)

                             Vs

RESPONDENT

Chandrabose,

S/o Kuttan,

Proprietor, Anitha Oil Mills,

Paliath House, Koleri P.O.,

Kenichira (via)

Sulthan Battery

JUDGMENT

SMT.  VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

                    Appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. 150/2008 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad, whereby the Forum below quashed the impugned bill and also directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainant.

          1.      The case of the complainant is that he was conducting an Oil Mill and was remitting the electricity charges regularly.  He was served with an additional bill dtd. 30.10.2008. for the remittance of a sum of Rs. 12,504/- on or before 15.11.2008  and at the time of remittance of electricity charges on 24.10.2008 also the opposite parties did not inform him about any arrears and the issuance of the said bill on the guise of audit short assessment is deficiency in service.  Submitting that he was not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 12,504/-, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill and to get the costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties.

          2.      The opposite parties filed version and contented that the complainant was liable to pay the impugned bill as it was a short assessment bill for the period from 18.11.96 to June 2005.  It was submitted that the capacitor installed in the premises of the complainant was not having the required ratings and that it was only on 27.6.2006 that a proper capacitor was fitted by the complainant.  The opposite parties further submitted that they are empowered to realize such kind of arrears and prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

          3.      Evidence adduced consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant and the opposite parties and Exts. A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant. 

          4.      The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties argued before us that the complainant is not a consumer coming under the Consumer Protection Act. and as per Section 145 of Electricity Act, the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and pass orders on it.  He further submitted that the complainant had not resorted to prefer an appeal before the competent authorities as per the statute and hence the Forum below ought to have found that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum below.  The learned counsel submitted before us that on merits also the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint.  He argued for the position that the bill that was issued on 30.10.2008 for the amount of Rs. 12,504 was liable to be paid by the complainant as it was done consequent to the audit report and also based on the fact that the complainant had not installed the capacitor on 18.11.1996 having required ratings. Hence it is argued by him that the appellants are justified in issuing the bill and prayed for allowing appeal.

5.      The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties has submitted before us that the Forum below has gone wrong in canceling the Ext. A1 bill as the appellants have issued the bill consequent to the report of the Audit wing of the KSEB.  He has also submitted that the complainant has installed the capacitor having the required ratings only from 27.6.2006 and the same ought to have been fixed on 18.11.96.  Hence it is argued by the learned counsel that the charging of 20% extra on the fixed charge and current charge from 18.11.96.  was as per Board Order.  But it is found that the appellants /opposite parties had not produced anything to show that there was such an audit report or that the capacitor installed in the premises on 18.11.96 did not have required ratings.  It is also to be found that the opposite parties have issued the bill from December1996 to June, 2005 towards the short assessment for not installing the required capacitor.  We find that the issuance of the said bill was without any basis and the Forum below had rightly allowed the complaint thereby canceling Ext. A1 Bill with costs of Rs. 500/-  We find no cogent grounds  to interfere with the impugned order passed  by the Forum below.

          In the result the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed.  As far as the present appeal is concerned, there shall be no order as to costs.

         VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

               M.  V. VISWANATHAN            : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                               M.K. ABDULLA SONA            :  MEMBER