KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL N0.209/2010

JUDGMENT DATED 26.10.2010

PRESENT

 SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                       --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                       --  MEMBER

1.      The Asst.Executive Engineer,

KSEB Kalpetta, Wayanad.

2.      The Secretary, KSEB                     --  APPELLANTS                           

          Vydyuthi Bhavan,

          Thiruvananthapuram.

              (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                   Vs.

Faizal Ammengara,

S/0 Beerankutty,

Nokia Care, W.M.O                                   --  RESPONDENT

Shopping Complex,

Main Road, Kalpetta,

Wayanad District.

   (By Adv.Sasthamangalam R.Jayakrishnan)

                                               JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in CC.No.33/09.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A3 and A4  demand notices dated 3.1.09 and 17.2.09.  The  aforesaid demand notices were issued based on the inspection conducted by the officials of KSEB on 15.12.08.  Evidencing the aforesaid site inspection, the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Section prepared Ext.B1 mahazer.  The Forum below has also considered the genuineness and correctness of B1 mahazer prepared by the Sub Engineer of KSEB.    The Forum below has also upheld B1 site mahazer relied on by the appellants/opposite parties.  But the Forum below quashed A3 and A4 penal bills (demand notices) on the grounds that the appellants/opposite parties levied or demanded excess  amount by treating the period of unauthorized use of additional load as one year  and the penal charge at 2 times.  The Forum below was of the view that only 6 months period can be taken for imposing the penal assessment for unauthorized additional load and   the rate at 1 ½ times can be taken into consideration.  But, unfortunately, the Forum below omitted to consider the subsequent amendment to Sub Section (5) & (6) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  It is further to be noted that the aforesaid amendment to Section 126 (5) & (6) came into operation with effect from 15.6.07 and the aforesaid amendment was published in the Gazettee of India on 29.5.07.    So,  it can very safely be concluded that the appellants/opposite parties had issued  A3 and A4 penal bills as per the provisions contained in Sub Section (5) & (6) of Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The Forum below cannot be justified in quashing the impugned penal bills namely A3 and A4.  So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside.

          The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has also submitted that the appellants/opposite parties changed the tariff of the complainant/consumer from LT VII B to LT VII A.  The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant cannot be upheld.  It is to be noted that the authorized connected load of the respondent/complainant/ consumer was only 560 W.   But, by the unauthorized load, it has come to 2750 W. Admittedly, the LT VII B tariff would be limited to 1 KW.    It can be seen that by exceeding the connected load above 1KW, there will be consequential change of tariff.    So, LT VII A will be the proper tariff for the complainant/consumer who is having the connected load of more than 1 KW.    The appellants/opposite parties are also justified in changing the tariff from LT VII B to LT VII A.  Thus in all respects, the complaint in CC.No.33/09 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta ought to have been dismissed.  Hence we do so. 

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated 30^th January 2010 passed by CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta is set aside and the complaint in CC.33/09 is dismissed.  The parties are directed to suffer their respect costs through out.

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 M.K.ABDULLA SONA --  MEMBER