DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 17th Day of January 2012 Present : Smt.Seena H, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 3/6/2011 (C.C.No.80/2011) Venugopal, S/o.Maniyan, Vembalodukalam, Thenari Post, Elappully, Palakkad. (Adv.M.Rajesh) - Complainant V/s 1.K.S.E.B. (Rep.by) Secretary, Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.L.Namasivayan) 2.Asst.Exe.Engineer, K.S.E.B. Elappully Section, Palakkad. (By Adv.L.Namasivayan) 3. Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Elappully Electrical Section, Palakkad. - Opposite parties (By Adv.L.Namasivayan) O R D E R By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER The Complainant is a farmer and is having altogether 5 acres of agricultural land. The connection provided to the complainant is under the Lt-V. Tariff which is of agricultural tariff of consumer No.9553. On 19/4/2011 the A.P.T.S. Squad of the K.S.E.B. conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant and seen that a man was washing mud in water which is drawn to irrigate coconut trees in the garden. The Squad made a conclusion that the irrigation is done for the purpose of sand silting operations and issued a penal bill for an amount of Rs.2,03,445/-. The connection to the complainant is actually effected on 28/7/2010. The calculation is adopted for the entire period. There is a clear violation of the principles of electricity laws. When water is drawn to the coconut garden of the complainant and if any body washed something in the water whether it would amount to a misuse of energy ? There is no provision in Electricity Act enable the authorities to term it as a misuse of energy. Further complainant stated that there is not even a whisper in the Site Mahazar nor in the order of the Authorized officer that the electricity is seen misused for the purpose of silting sand. The quality of sand accumulated adopting the method of silting is also not mentioned in the site mahazar. To irrigate the paddy fields in the summer season most of the water is been drawn, so there is a raise in the consumption for the past 6 months period. The complainant has cultivated Ponmani seed and the yielding period is 6 months. The provisional bill is challenged and objection was raised. After receiving the objections a hearing was conducted on 6/5/11 in the Section Office. The authorized officer without applying his mind and without properly considering the objection ordered the provisional bill as final bill. The final bill is totally incorrect and liable to be set aside. The other allegation put up by the officer is that the complainant has used 7.5 H.P. motor for the purpose of irrigation and further that it is seen a house is constructed in the premises and there is a chance that the electricity has been misused. There is no proof available on the record and of the record to prove the allegation of the misuse of electricity by the complainant. The act of opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to 1. Withdraw the penal bill dated 19/5/11 for an amount of Rs.2,03,445/- 2. Pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony 3. Pay cost of the proceedings. Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The complaint is specifically barred under Section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 and hence there is no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no official in the address of 2nd opposite party as Asst.Executive Engineer. The complainant was provided with a three phase electric connection on 28/7/2010 as consumer No.9553, in the highly subsidized tariff of agriculture as Lt.V tariff exclusively for the purpose of watering of agriculture crops. It was stated in the certificate that the complainant needed electricity connection for running a 3 H.P. pump set for irrigating 1.045 Hectares of paddy and coconut crops. Accordingly the connection was provided to the complainant without collecting OYEC charges or other charges and free of cost. Such highly subsidized electrical energy is supplied to the complainant only for 65 paise per unit of electricity, as the lowest among all the tariff. In this case the complainant is included in the list of exempted agricultural consumer. But it is a mandatory condition that the electricity connection should be used for no other purpose that for pumping of water for watering the agricultural crops of complainant. On 19/4/11 the Anti Power Theft Squad of K.S.E.B. detected that the complainant was filtering huge heaps of sand using a 7.5H.P. submersible motor pump connected to the exclusive agricultural connection and drawing water from a bore well situated in front of the motor shed and misutilizing for it. It was detected that huge heaps of sand brought from outside is kept there about 50 meters north of the motor shed and the water from bore well is pumped out into the mined sand for filtering it using a 7.5 H.P. submersible motor pump. This process was going on at the time of the inspection. Approximately 4 tractor loads of sand mixed with mud was seen dumped there for such washing and filtering. A heap of sand so washed and filtered was also seen kept nearby. It is thus clear that the consumer is misusing the free electric connection for filtering mined sand for commercial purpose. It was also detected that from this pump house approximately 100 meters of wire with 3/20 size P.V.C. with having joints was drawn along the ground to a thatched shed due north east of the pump house which is inside the compound. This free and highly subsidized electricity was seen used for illuminating bulbs and running of fan. It shows that the process of misuse of electricity for filtering the mined sand is going on day and night. The complainant was constructing a residential house adjacent to this and he has not applied for any electricity connection for the construction purpose. The house construction is almost finished. Hence it is clear that he has misused the free agricultural electric connection for the construction purpose also. For the construction purpose electric connection is given under Lt.VII tariff, which is a higher rated tariff. The A.P.T.S. team took photographs of the sand filtering activity going on there and also took into custody the wires used for unauthorized extension, a plug box with control switch, adopter for drawing power from holder and a bed switch used for controlling the circuit. A site mahazar was drawn from there and a copy was handed over to the complainant who was present through out the inspection period and he also put signature in the site mahazar. As per the mandatory provisions of law for such misuses and situation the power supply to the complainant under above electric connection was disconnected on the spot and a complaint was registered with the Police Station. The criminal proceedings as per law is in progress. A provisional bill amounting to Rs.2,03,445/- was issued to the complainant by 3rd opposite party under the provisions of Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant preferred an objection and a personal hearing of the complainant was conducted on 6/5/11. The Assessing Officer issued a final bill for an amount of Rs.2,03,445/- on 19/5/2011. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost. Both parties filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A4 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B11 marked on the side of the opposite parties. Matter was heard. Issues to be considered are 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ? 2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ? Issues 1 & 2 We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly the complainant was provided with a three phase electric connection on 28/7/2010 as Consumer No.9553 in the highly subsidized tariff of agriculture as LT.V tariff exclusively for the purpose of watering of agriculture crops. In Ext.B1 site mahazar mentioned that on 19/4/2011 the APTS of K.S.E.B. detected that the complainant was filtering huge heaps of sand using a 7.5 H.P. motor pump connected to the agricultural electric connection and drawing water from a bore well situated in front of the motor shed. Ext.B3 series the photos also shows the huge heaps of sand. Ext.B1 site mahazar signed by the complainant. The opposite parties stated that they took wires used for unauthorized extension, a plug box with control switch, adaptor for drawing power from holder and a bed switch used for controlling the circuit in the premises of complainant. The complainant has not produced evidence to prove that he never used electricity for filtering huge heaps of sand. The complainant stated that to irrigate the paddy fields in the summer season most of the water is been drawn, so there is a raise in consumption for the past 6 months period. The opposite parties produced photograph taken on the site along with the original mahazar and list of articles taken in the premises of the complainant. No contradictory evidence produced by the complainant. According to the opposite parties the electric connection provided to the complainant without collecting OYEC charges or other charges and as free of cost. The complainant preferred an objection to the provisional bill and after conducted a personal hearing, opposite parties issued a final bill for an amount of Rs.2,03,445/- It is to be noted that the surprise inspection conducted by the APTS is admitted by the complainant. The complainant has not examined the opposite party who has prepared the site mahazar. The heavily subsidized tariff is provided to the farmers with an aim of promoting agriculture. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is identified as an eligible consumer for exemption from electricity payment by the Agricultural Officer. The complainant stated that when water is drawn to the coconut garden and if any body washed something in the water whether it would amount to a misuse of energy ? It is crystal clear that the complainant has washed something in the water when water is drawn to the coconut garden. Ext.B1 and Ext.B3 clearly proved the large scale misuse of free electricity committed by the complainant for commercial purpose. The provisions of Section 126 of Electricity Act was initiated and the provisional bill was issued to complainant by opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that complainant miserably failed to prove his case. In the result complaint dismissed with a direction to the opposite parties to give 10 monthly installments to pay the Ext.A2 bill. Pronounced in the open court on this the 17th day of January 2012 Sd/- Seena.H President Sd/- Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K. Member APPENDIX Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext.A1 – Photocopy of site mahazar Ext.A2 – Original Bill dtd.19/5/11 for Rs.2,03,445/- Ext.A3 – Copy of Proceedings of Hearing conducted on 6/5/11 Ext.A4 – Document showing sale of paddy by complainant to Palachira Mannukkad Karshakasamithi Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite parties Ext.B1 – Site Mahazar (Original) Ext.B2 – Certificate dated 12/10/11 issued by Asst.Exe.Engineer, APTS Squad Ext.B3 series – 3 Nos. of Photographs along with CD Ext.B4 – Original Report dated 19/4/11 of Asst.Exe.Engineer, APTS, KSEB, Palakkad Ext.B5 – Acknowledgement copy of disconnection notice dated 19/4/11 Ext.B6 – Attested copy of Service Connection Register Ext.B7 – Original of the Statement of the complainant in the hearing conducted at Assessing officer dated 6/5/11 Ext.B8 – Original of Proceedings of Hearing dated 6/5/11 Ext.B9 – Original letter of the complainant to 3rd opposite party Ext.B10 – Attested copy of the order of Hon’ble Forum in CC.89/10 Ext.B11 – Copy of bill dated 19/5/11 Cost Allowed No Cost Allowed. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 7th day of August 2011
Present : Smt.Seena.H. President : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member : Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member
(C.C.No.80/2011) Venugopal, S/o.Maniyan, Vembalodukalam, Thenari Post, Elapully, Palakkad. - Complainant V/s 1. Secretary, K.S.E.B. Pattom, Thiruvannathapuram
2. Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B. Elapully Section, Palakkad.
3. Asst.Engineer. K.S.E.B. Elapully Electrical Section, Palakkad. - Opposite parties O R D E R By Smt.SEENA.H. PRESIDENT
Complainant represented and prays time for filing chief affidavit. Sufficient time already granted. Hence complaint dismissed for default. Pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of August 2011. Sd/- Smt.Seena.H President Sd/- Smt.Preetha G Nair Member Sd/- Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. Member | 
