O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Case of the petitioner, filed on 18..11..2008, is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board with vide consumer No. 11901 of Electrical Major Section, Kuravilangad. According to the petitioners she is regularly paying the bill issued by the opposite party. The electric connection is availed for Tea Shop conducted by the petitioner as a means of self employment for earning livelihood. The spot biller of the opposite party is inspecting the premises of the petitioner and issuing the bills. On 12..12..2008 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 22724/- alleging un authorized additional load in the premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, act of the opposite party in issuing the bill is clear deficiency in -2- service. So, she prays for a direction for canceling the bill Dtd: 12..12..2008. Petitioner claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the authorized connected load of the petitioner is 1 KW. On 30..11..2008 Assistant .Engineer, Kaduthuruthy conducted a surprise inspection of the premises of the petitioner’s hotel and found that petitioner had a connected load of 1989 watts instead of authorized load of 800 watts. A Mahazar was prepared in presence of the husband of the petitioner. Later based on the unauthorized additional load bill for Rs. 22,724/- was issued. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and bill issued is legal and valid. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Petitioner admitted inspection of the opposite party at the premises of the petitioner. The only contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is conducting a teashop near the electricity office of opposite party and officers and staff of the opposite parties are aware of the connected load of the petitioner. Further more petitioner contented that if at all, if there is, any un authorized additional load it will be detected by the spot biller during his meter inspection . Opposite party produced the site mahazar prepared by the opposite party -3- dtd:30..11..2008 said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that inspection was conducted in presence of the petitioner’s husband. Further more, petitioner has no dispute with regard to Ext. B1. Opposite party in their affidavit averred that petitioner had now regularized the unauthorized additional load. So, In our view in a way petitioner admitted the unauthorized use of electricity. So, No deficiency in service can be attributed in issuing the disputed bill dtd: 12..12..2008. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner: Ext. A1: Copy of licence Ext. A2: Copy of bill Dtd: 12..12..2008 Ext. A3: Copy of bill Dtd: 15..10..2008 Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Carbon Copy of site mahazar Ext. B2: Carbon copy of notice issued to the petitioner Dtd: 12..12..2008. By Order, Senior Superintendent. | 
