JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT 

          The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.No.138/02  in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The forum below set aside the penal bill issued with respect to the Consumer numbers of the complaint for sum of Rs.12051/- and Rs.57097/- and also directed to refund Rs.3122/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount and to pay cost of Rs.750/-.

          2. The case of the complainant who is running a hotel in a two storied building is that on 22.3.02 a penal bill as mentioned above was issued under the threat of dis connection.  He paid Rs.3122/-.  The balance was asked to be paid in 4 instalments.  According to the petitioner he has regularly remitting the amounts.

          3. Opposite parties filed version contending that on 21.3.02 the special Vigilance Squad conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioners premises and it was found that there was un-authorized connected load in both the consumer numbers.  There was 2 KW of un-authorized connected load in Con.No.2797 and 2 KW of un-authorized connected load and un authorized extension of 2 KW in Con.No.7497.  Hence the action of complainant is in violation of clause 24  and 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of  Electrical Energy and the billing is done as authorized by clause 14 (b) of Conditions of Supply.  The complainant did not inform the board as to the additional load connected for which he has been liable to pay fixed charges.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of   proof affidavits filed by both sides and Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B3, C1 & C1 (a).

          5. It is seen that during the proceedings the complainant filed application for appointing a Commissioner for assessing the connected load of the two consumer numbers.  The Electrical Inspector, Kottayam was

appointed as Commissioner.  He filed Ext.C1 report.  It is mentioned that the Deputy Electrical Inspector, P.V.Annam inspected the premises in the presence of Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Mundakayam and the petitioner.  The Electrical Inspector has reported that in Consumer No.7497, the existing connected load as 2951 Ws and in consumer No.2797   the connected load is 2559.5 Ws.  The same would show that the connected load was less than the sanctioned load for which the complainant was remitting tariff.  It is seen that the appellants have not adduced any positive evidence to establish the fact that at the time of inspection of the Vigilance squad, the connected load as mentioned in the version was existing

          6. It is contended by the appellant that evidently the complainant has removed the additional fixtures before the Electrical Inspector inspected the place.  But we find that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to support the above contention.  No mahazar prepared at the time of surprise inspection or other evidence has been produced before the Forum to substantiate the above contention.

In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the forum.  The appeal is dismissed.

KERALA STATECONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.82/04

JUDGMENT DATED.1.4.08

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            --   PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              --   MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                      --   MEMBER

1. The Secretary, KSEB,

    Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer,                                        --  APPELLANTS

    Mundakayam.

  (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                   Vs.

Cyriac Sebastian,

Manager, Pride Hotel,                                        --  RESPONDENT

Mundakayam, Kottayam.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.No.138/02  in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The forum below set aside the penal bill issued with respect to the Consumer numbers of the complaint for sum of Rs.12051/- and Rs.57097/- and also directed to refund Rs.3122/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of receipt of the amount and to pay cost of Rs.750/-.

          2. The case of the complainant who is running a hotel in a two storied building is that on 22.3.02 a penal bill as mentioned above was issued under the threat of dis connection.  He paid Rs.3122/-.  The balance was asked to be paid in 4 instalments.  According to the petitioner he has regularly remitting the amounts.

          3. Opposite parties filed version contending that on 21.3.02 the special Vigilance Squad conducted a surprise inspection of the petitioners premises and it was found that there was un-authorized connected load in both the consumer numbers.  There was 2 KW of un-authorized connected load in Con.No.2797 and 2 KW of un-authorized connected load and un authorized extension of 2 KW in Con.No.7497.  Hence the action of complainant is in violation of clause 24  and 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of  Electrical Energy and the billing is done as authorized by clause 14 (b) of Conditions of Supply.  The complainant did not inform the board as to the additional load connected for which he has been liable to pay fixed charges.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of   proof affidavits filed by both sides and Exts.A1 to A3, B1 to B3, C1 & C1 (a).

          5. It is seen that during the proceedings the complainant filed application for appointing a Commissioner for assessing the connected load of the two consumer numbers.  The Electrical Inspector, Kottayam was

appointed as Commissioner.  He filed Ext.C1 report.  It is mentioned that the Deputy Electrical Inspector, P.V.Annam inspected the premises in the presence of Asst.Engineer, KSEB, Mundakayam and the petitioner.  The Electrical Inspector has reported that in Consumer No.7497, the existing connected load as 2951 Ws and in consumer No.2797   the connected load is 2559.5 Ws.  The same would show that the connected load was less than the sanctioned load for which the complainant was remitting tariff.  It is seen that the appellants have not adduced any positive evidence to establish the fact that at the time of inspection of the Vigilance squad, the connected load as mentioned in the version was existing

          6. It is contended by the appellant that evidently the complainant has removed the additional fixtures before the Electrical Inspector inspected the place.  But we find that the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to support the above contention.  No mahazar prepared at the time of surprise inspection or other evidence has been produced before the Forum to substantiate the above contention.

In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the forum.  The appeal is dismissed.

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU            --   PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN              --  MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                              --  MEMBER

s/L