KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 1049/2004

JUDGEMENT DATED : 27-02-2010

PRESENT:

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN             :  MEMBER

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                                :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR                  : MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.      The Secretary,

            K.S.E.B., Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      The Asst. Executive Engineer,

          K.S.E.B., Kuravilangad,

          Major Section, Kottayam.

3.      The Sub Engineer,

          K.S.E.B., Vayala Sub Division, Kottayam.

                        (Rep. by Adv. Sri. B. Sakthidharan Nair)

                                                Vs

RESPONDENT

Jose Abraham,

Proprietor, J.J. Engineering Works,

Vembally P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

JUDGMENT

SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   :  MEMBER

                        This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29-09-2004 in OP No. 258/99 of CDRF, Kottayam whereby the opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext. A1 demand notice for Rs. 8,073/- and Ext. A1(a) demand notice for Rs.1,463/- and to issue a fresh demand notice in respect of Ext.A1 demand notice for the energy consumed without penalty.  The Forum below has also ordered cost of Rs. 750/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant.  It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties.

          2.      The case of the complainant before the Forum is that he is running a small-scale industrial unit and that on 10-03-1999 a bill for Rs. 8,073/- and on 16-03-1999 another bill for Rs. 1,463/- were served on him.  It is his further case that he is not liable to pay the said amount and alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed before the Forum praying for directions to cancel the demand notice for Rs. 8,073/- and also to pay compensation and costs.

3.      The opposite parties filed version wherein it was contended that the complainant had exceeded the sanctioned load of 8 KW by connecting equipments without the knowledge and sanction of the opposite parties.  The same was detected by the Sub Engineer during 12/98 and the impugned bills were issued for the unauthorized connected load.  The opposite parties further contended that as the complainant had installed equipments without the consent of the opposite parties he was liable to pay the additional penal bills issued to him and the opposite parties had not committed any deficiency of service and acted only as per rules.  Hence  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.      The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and second opposite party.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A20 were marked on his side.  On the side of the opposite parties Exts. B1 to B11 were marked. 

          5.      The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below in cancelling Exts.A1 and A1(a) bills are perse illegal and unsustainable.  It is also argued by him that the complainant had exceeded the connected load and the bills were issued on detection of the same.  He submitted that the complainant himself had admitted that he had regularized the additional load on a subsequent date.  Hence it is his case that the complainant was liable to pay the penal bill issued to him and the Forum had erred in cancelling the said bill with further direction to issue a bill for the energy consumed only.

          6.      On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellants and on perusing the records, we find that it is the admitted case of both the parties that Ext.A1 and A1(a) bills were issued for the additional load connected by the complainant without the consent of the opposite parties.  The learned Counsel for the appellants had argued that though no site mahazar was prepared at the time of detection, the fact of additional load is fortified by the admission of the complainant himself that he had given an application for regularization of the additional load and that the opposite parties had regularized the same on the application of the complainant.  The learned Counsel had also submitted that it was as per Rules that the complainant was issued with the penal bills as Clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy empowers the opposite parties to issue a bill at 3 times the rate applicable for 6 months from the date of detection of misuse.  We find force in the said argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that when additional load is detected the opposite parties are entitled to realize penal charges from the consumer at 3 times the rate applicable for a period of 6 months.  In the said circumstance, we do not find any deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties in issuing the penal bills on detection of the additional load in the premises of the complainant.  It is noted that the Forum below did not consider this aspect while passing the impugned order.  We find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Forum below in OP No. 258/99 is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                             VALSALA SARANGADHARAN    :  MEMBER

                              M.V. VISWANATHAN :JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER