By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case of complainant is that the complainant is using electric connection stands in the name of his father vide No.6892. There are no arrears as electricity charges. The complainant purchased two machines and when intimated to respondents 2 and 3 with regard to its use, they have inspected the premises and issued a bill dated 16/1/09 alleging unauthorized use of connected load. This bill is illegal and complainant is not liable to pay this bill amount. The complainant submitted a complaint to the respondent on 21/1/09. But it was not considered . These acts of respondents are deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the complainant is conducting a commercial venture at Irinjalakuda town by name Deans Bakery. The electricity is using for running the said bakery. He is also conducting an ice cream parlour attached to the bakery. It is a highly reputed shop at Irinjalakuda. The tariff comes under LT VII A and 3 KW energy is allotted. The complainant is paying current charges for the said energy of 3 KW. It is incorrect that the complainant had intimated the purchase of 2 machines to respondents. There was no intimation and no application submitted. The complainant is liable to intimate the respondent that new machines are installing and change in the connected load. On 30/12/08 the team of Regional Audit officer inspected the premises and it was found that there was use of 6.908 KW of electricity. It is found that complainant was misusing the energy. The inspection was done in the presence of complainant. At the time of inspection the complainant intimated that machines of 1 ½ HP and 1 HP were connected only before one week. Hence the connected load fixed as 4.980. A mahazar was prepared and witnessed by complainant. There is no illegality on the acts of respondents. The complainant is liable to pay the disputed bill amount. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondents?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
4. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P3 and oral testimony of RW1 and Exhibits R1 to R4.
5. The complaint is filed to get cancellation of Exhibit P3 demand notice.
6. Exhibit P3 is issued to the consumer consequent of the site inspection conducted by Regional Audit Officer. According to complainant he is not liable to pay this bill amount because there are no arrears of electricity. But the respondents filed detailed version and according to them there was misuse of energy. According to respondents complainant is running a commercial venture by name Deans bakery at Irinjalakuda and the load allotted was 3 KW. But at the time of inspection it was found that complainant was using unauthorized additional load for 4.980 KW.
7. It is the case of respondents that there are usage of 2 machines which was not intimated to them and complainant installed the same and had consumed the energy. So the respondents alleging misuse of energy by unauthorized additional load. It is the contention that at the time of inspection of Regional Audit officer on 30/12/08 the misuse of energy was found. At the same time the complainant would say that when he had applied to the respondents for regularization the respondents inspected the site and issued the bill. But there is no evidence adduced to this aspect and no copy of application submitted.
8. The respondents produced Exhibits R1 to R4 documents in which Exhibit R3 is the application submitted by complainant to the respondents. It is noted that earlier an application was submitted to permit him to function the newly purchased machine. Exhibit R3 is after filing of complaint before this Forum. Whether there was any earlier complaint or not is not proved. Exhibit R4 is the copy of reply from KSEB to the complainant in which they have wanted the procedures to be complied.
9. RW1 is examined on the part of respondents and who is the person who had inspected the premises. It is denied by him about the application of complainant to permit him to function the newly purchased machine. It is his statement that there is no application submitted by complainant in his information. What ever may be the contentions of respondents the genuineness of Exhibit P3 is in question. Prima-facie Exhibit P3 is ambiguous and not genuine. There are no details of the bill as prescribed under Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005. It is the duty of respondents to give the details as stated in the Act. According to them 3KW was the connected load permitted and 6.908 KW was found used by complainant. But they have reduced it as 4.908 KW because the two machines are purchased newly. Then what was the additional load in addition to 3KW allotted has not proved by respondents. There are no explanation in Exhibit P3. The agreement executed between the parties also not produced to show the load allotted. Since they have inclined to exclude 2KW from the 7 KW as stated in Exhibit P1. All these would lead that Exhibit P3 is ambiguous and the respondents failed to prove it beyond doubt. In this circumstance there is no other way except to cancel the same. It is found that deficiency in service committed by respondents.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed and Exhibit P3 notice stands cancelled.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of November 2013.
