KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAD, THIORUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 70/2008

JUDGMENT DATED:5.2.2010

PRESENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN                                   : MEMBER

1. Assistant Executive Engineer,                    :APPELLANTS

    Electrical Major Section,

    Kottakkal, Malappuram.

2. Executive Engineer,

    Electrical Major Section, Manjeri.

(By Adv.S.Balachandran)

                        Vs.

K.T.Thalib, S/o Mammu Haji,                                : RESPONDENT

Kallar Mangalam.P.O.,

Kadampuzha, Malappuram.

(By Adv.R.Narendran Naair)

JUDGMENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN       : MEMBER

          This appeal is preferred from the order dated  12..3.2008 passed by CDRF, Malappuram in OP.No.51/2004.  The complaint was preferred by the respondent herein as the complainant against the appellants as opposite parties.  The lower Forum allowed the complaint, whereby cancelled the disputed bill and directed the opposite parties to issue revised bill imposing penalty twice the rate of fixed charges per KW of additional load per month for a period of 6 months prior to the inspection  and also directed to adjust the amounts remitted if any in future bills.

          2. The complainant has approached the Forum alleging that  the bill dated 22.10.01 for Rs.3,13,409 is illegal and without any  basis.  Hence he prayed for the cancellation of the bill and refund of amount remitted by him based on the disputed bill along with compensation.

          3. Opposite parties filed version and contended that on an inspection of APTS of the opposite parties it was detected that  there was unauthorized additional  load of 41KW in addition to the sanctioned load of 35KW.  Hence the issuance of penalty bill under 42 (d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy was supported by them and that as the bill was issued as per the rules they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits of both parties; Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 on the side of the opposite parties.

          5. We heard the learned counsel for both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants argued the case  based on the short question whether the Board order dated 18.9.02 had retrospective effect enabling the Forum to pass such an order.  The case of the appellants is that it had no retrospective effect.  The Board order No.1292/02 dated 18.9.02 has been produced before us and on a perusal of the said order we find that the Board had made very clear that the amendment to clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical energy shall come into  force from the date of order only.  It is true that the order stipulates penalty for unauthorized additional load at the rate of  twice the demand charges per KVA for the additional load till the said unauthorized additional load is removed or regularized as per rules.  In the instant case it is observed that the complainant had regularized the additional load and the Forum has rightly observed that there was additional load in the premises of the complainant as detected by APTS.  It seems that the Forum had passed the order on the presumption that Board order dated 18.9.02 can be applied in the cases of that originated  prior to 18.9.02 also.  On an appreciation of the entire facts of the case we find that  on account of unauthorized additional load and issuance of the penalty bill occurred in October 2001 which is well before the amendment to clause 42(d) of Conditions of Supply came into force.

          6. So we have no hesitation to hold that the Board had issued the bill in accordance with clause 42(d) of Conditions of Supply existing at the time of inspection and issuance of the bill.  As the Board order dated 18.9.02 has no   retrospective effect,  the Forum below has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to issue a fresh bill based on the amended provision

          7. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below, we find no merit in the said contentions.  It is abundantly  clear that the Board  order has no retrospective effect.  Hence we are of the view that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside and we do so accordingly.

          In the result the appeal is allowed and order dated 12.3.08 in OP.No.51/04 of CDRF, Malappuram is set aside.  As far as the present appeal is concerned there shall be no order as to costs.

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                : MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN                                   : MEMBER

ps