BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/09/2011

Date of Order : 29/02/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 521/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is the owner in possession of a building bearing No. 19/437 of Angamaly Municipality. He availed himself of an electric connection to the residential building and to the rooms situated in front of the building. The complainant is conducting a tailoring shop and a barber shop in the said rooms. On 01-08-2011, the officials of the opposite party examined the electric meter and prepared a mahazar. Later, they directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 36,500/- towards penal charges. The complainant lodged a complaint against the penal bill, but it was rejected by the opposite parties. The complainant has not used the electricity in excess as alleged by the opposite parties. The complainant is entitled to get the penal bill set aside and to get Rs. 5,000/- by way of costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The electric connection bearing No. 745 is under LT VII A tariff with an authorised connected load of 2000 watts. There are 3 other connections in the building consumer No. 5101 under commercial tariff consumer No. 21445 under domestic tariff and Consumer No. 21446 under commercial tariff. On inspection, it was detected that the supply in consumer No. 745 was extended unauthorisedly to another room for running a barber shop. A mahazar was prepared at the spot. Unauthorised extension of supply is an offence under Section 126 of the Electricity Act. The complainant filed petition before the Assistant Engineer, and thereafter, before the Deputy Chief Engineer, since he has not remitted 50% of the penal bill to consider the Appeal the same was rejected. The consumer is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed penal bill.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the witness for the complainant was examined as PW2. Exts. A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Exts. B1 to B6 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties who appeared in person.

4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned penal bill set aside?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

5. Point No. i. :- During the proceedings in this complaint, at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 594/2011 dated 14-10-2011, this Forum directed the opposite parties not to disconnect the electric supply to the complainant bearing Consumer No. 745 under LT VII A category till disposal of the complaint. Admittedly on 01-08-2011, the officers of the opposite party entered the premises of the complainant and prepared Ext. A1 mahazar. As per the mahazar, the complainant has drawn an electric connection to the nearby hair cutting shop through a weather proof wire. It is also stated in the mahazar that PW2 the employee of PW1 was present at the time of preparation of Ext. A1. Accordingly, the opposite parties issued Ext. A2 penal bill to the tune of Rs. 36,500/- retrospectively for a period of 365 days from the date of inspection. Though, thereafter the complainant has challenged Ext. A2 bill, the appellate authorities have not considered the points highlighted by the complainant for reasons of their own. It is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have not considered Ext. A6 agreement entered into between PW's 1 and 2. Ext. A6 goes to show that the barber shop was started only on 21-07-2011. Evidently, the inspection was only on 01-08-2011 after 8 days form the date of Ext. A6 agreement, but the opposite parties levied penal charges for a year. Since the barber shop was started only on 21-07-2011, the complainant is liable only to pay penal charges if any from 21-07-2011 the date of agreement under Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003 where only upon he had started the barber shop utilizing the energy. Nothing is before us by the opposite parties to controvert the same. So, we are not to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the penal charges as per Ext. A2 the impugned bill.

6. Point No. ii. :- The complainant having failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties regarding his nature of conduct his claim is forfeited by law. So, the claim of the complainant for costs is unsustainable. Rejected hence.

7. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. We set aside Ext. A2 bill issued by the opposite parties.

2. The order in I.A. No. 594/2011 is made absolute.

3. The opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh penal bill retrospectively from 21-07-2011 the date of execution of Ext. A6 to 01-08-2011 the date of inspection by the officials of the opposite party.

4. The complainant is directed to take steps to obtain a separate electric connection to his barber shop, immediately, unless he does so his plea shall stand unsustained in law naturally.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of February 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========