KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 803/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 19-12-2009 PRESENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, K.S.E.B. Pattikkadu, Trichur. 2. K.S.E.B. represented by its Secretary. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Balachandran) Vs RESPONDENT K.K. Yohannan, Kayyanikkal House, Vaniyampara P.O. Irumpu Palam, Trichur. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S.S. Kalkura, Sri.R.S. Kalkura & Sri. G.S. Kalkura) JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is referred from the order dated 13th September 2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1456/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent in this appeal against the appellants alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing P2 demand notice for Rs. 11,994/- and P1 bill for Rs. 2,183/-. The complainant therein prayed to cancel the aforesaid demand notice and the electricity bill and also to restrain the appellants (KSEB) from issuing bills under tariff LT VII A and to treat the connection under LT-1. The appellants herein filed written version before the Forum below denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the P1 bill and P2 demand notice were issued under Clause 42 of the conditions of supply of electrical energy and that there was no illegality or irregularity in demanding Rs. 11,994/- and the bill amount of Rs. 2,183/-. 2. Before the Forum below, P1 to P4 and R1 to R5 documents were produced and marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint in OP No. 1456/04. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order cancelling the demand notice for Rs. 11,994 and the electricity bill for Rs. 2,183/-. The appellants were also directed to act in accordance with order X of the Kerala State Electricity Board Low Tension (other than public lighting) tariff order 2001. The appellants herein were also directed to pay cost of Rs. 1,500/-. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13-09-2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1456/04, the present appeal is filed. 3. We heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on R1 site mahazar and the admission made by the complainant regarding use of energy for conducting a teashop, telephone booth and stationery shop in the lean to house. Thus, the appellant justified their action in issuing P1 and P2 bill and demand notice. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent (complainant) supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in issuing P1 bill for Rs. 2,183/- and P2 demand notice for Rs. 11,994/-? 2. Whether there was any misuse of energy supplied to the respondent/complainant under tariff LT-1? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 13-09-2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1456/04? 5. Points 1 to 3:- The respondent (complainant) is a domestic consumer under the appellants (KSEB) with consumer No. 3176. There is no dispute that the electricity connection was given to the premises of the complainant for domestic purpose and the complainant was charged under LT-1 tariff. Admittedly, the Sub Engineer of the Electrical Section, Patticaud conducted an inspection on the premises of the respondent/complainant on 13-08-2004 and prepared R1 site mahazar. It is true that the complainant refused to affix his signature to the said site mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer. But it is admitted that site mahazar was prepared by the Sub Engineer on 13-08-2004. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the categorical admission made by the complainant in his written complaint in OP No. 1456/04 about the existence of lean to his residential building and the same is being used for conducting telephone booth, tea shop and stationery shop. It is to be noted that electrical energy is being used for running the aforesaid commercial establishments. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that he is only using one tube light and one ordinary light for running the aforesaid teashop, stationery shop and telephone booth. The aforesaid case of the complainant that for running the aforesaid three business establishments he is only using one tube light and one ordinary light cannot be believed or accepted. The R1 site mahazar would give the details of the existing connected load. So, it can very safely be concluded that the respondent/complainant misused electrical energy supplied for domestic purpose by using the same for commercial purpose. 6. The Forum below has much relied on the Kerala State Electricity Board Low Tension (other than public lighting) tariff order and took the view that a domestic consumer under LT-1 can use energy for commercial purpose without exceeding 20% of the total connected load. It is to be noted that as per the order X of the Kerala State Electricity Board Low Tension (other than public lighting) tariff order 2001 domestic consumers are allowed to utilize electrical energy in some portion of their residence for their own use for purpose other than domestic as defined under LT-1 when such connected load does not exceed 20% of the total connected load in their premises. It is pertinent to note that such use of energy can only be for the consumers’ own use. It is further to be noted that for purposes other than domestic purposes can only be for the consumer’s own use. The energy provided for domestic purposes cannot be permitted to use for commercial purposes. In the present case on hand, the respondent/complainant used the electrical energy supplied under domestic tariff for running commercial establishments like telephone booth, stationery shop and tea shop. The aforesaid use of energy for commercial purposes cannot be treated as the complainant’s own use. The energy consumed for running telephone booth, teashop and stationery shop would not come under the purview of the Kerala State Electricity Board Low Tension (other than public lighting) tariff order 2001. Hence the finding of the Forum below that there was no misuse of energy by the respondent/complainant cannot be upheld. 7. The documentary evidence available on record would show that the respondent/complainant misused electrical energy supplied for domestic purpose by using the energy for commercial purpose. It is also borne out from the available records that the respondent/complainant used the energy supplied for domestic purposes for the purpose of running a telephone booth, teashop and stationery shop. Thereby there was misuse of energy by the respondent/complainant. In such a situation, the appellants are justified in issuing the penal bill by treating the consumption of energy under LT VII A. Therefore, issuance of bill for Rs. 2,183/- under LT VII A and demand of Rs. 11,994/- by way of penal charges can be treated as a justifiable action. The issuance of P1 and P2 (bill and demand notice) is in accordance with law as provided under Clause 42 of the conditions of supply of electrical energy. If that be so, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside and the complaint in OP No. 1456/04 is also to be dismissed. Hence we do so. These points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13-09-2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1456/04 is set aside. The complaint in OP No. 1456/04 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur is dismissed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. | 
