O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          The complainant is tenant of room No. 824 and electricity connection to the room stands in the name of land lord. Being beneficiary the complainant is a electricity consumer with consumer No.17201. She conducts a lab there in. The 2^nd opposite party inspected the premises on 03/03/09 and found that the connected load is above the permitted limit. The site mahazar prepared by 2^nd opposite party noted 1000VA-800W UPS. Since there was acute voltage fluctuation the complainant forced to install the UPS to use the Machine without interruption. Without lacking note of the above fact, 2^nd opposite party included the units of UPS in Mahazar as connected load. So the finding in the Mahazar is wrong. Based on the Mahazar opposite party issued a notice alleging higher connected load and misuse of electricity and on the same day they issued a bill for Rs.9,032/- towards electric charges. Since the same is illegal, unfair trade practice and deficiency of service this complaint filed.

          2) On receiving complaint, notice served properly to opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed its version. The contents of the version is as follows. The complainant is not maintainable. Consumer No. 17201 is included in the LT VII B with connected load of 240 watt availed for the purpose of small shop rooms. It is true that the complainant conducting a clinical lab using the above electric connection. It is true that on 03/03/09 the inspection wing of Varantharapally Section, KSEB inspected the aforesaid premises and prepared a Mahazar showing the appliances connected to the electric supply including light, fan, UPS, Plug etc. The UPS having 1000 VA-800 W were connected load. Thus total connected load of 1556 watts were found out. The complainant also not applied to this office till date to regularize the same. In fact, the clinical lab is to be included in the Tariff LTVIB. There after notice has been issued. The inspection revealed that they are provided with LTVIIB Tariff and actually using LT VI B Tariff electric supply. Based on the same the Tariff changed to LT VI B and bill for Rs.9,032/- were issued and same were received by the complainant as well and prayed for a dismissal.

          3) Point to be taken in to consideration

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency of service happening on the part

                       of opposite parties ?

                   b) Reliefs and costs. ?

          4) From the side of the complainant, he filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint. She also produced 3 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is demand notice dtd. 05/03/2009 for Rs.9,032/-; Ext. P2 is the notice dtd. 05/03/2009 showing misuse of electricity. Ext. P3 is the copy of site Mahazar dtd. 03/03/2009 showing total connected load 1556 watts. From the side of the opposite parties produced 3 documents which are marked as Exts. R1 to R3.  Ext. R1 and R2 is the office copy of Exts. P1 & P2. Ext. R3 is the original of Ext. P3.

          Point No. 1 :

          5) In this case both the parties did not adduce oral evidence and documents produced are one and same. The purpose for which the electricity connection availed is also an undisputed fact. The only dispute is with regard to inclusion of 800 W UPS in Ext. P3 site Mahazar. Ext. P3 is clear that the UPS is connected in the electric supply and the complainant admits the same in her complaint. Undisputedly, UPS connected to an electric supply comes under the purview of electricity consumption. There is no infirmity in including the UPS  in the connected load as well. Even before adding the wattage of UPS in the connected load,  the computation of connected load amounts to 756 watts which is well above the permitted load and complainant has no dispute to that as well. Hence considering the above discussion as a whole. The case of  unauthorized use of electricity remains an admitted fact. Moreover, nothing has been brought out in evidence to show any infirmity in preparation of Mahazar for proceedings initiated Under Section 135 and 126 of Electricity Act 2003. It is true Ext. R3 site Mahazar marked subject to proof but the carbon copy of the same is marked as Ext. P3 by the complainant himself. Since the true carbon copy of the document marked by the complainant in evidence, the subsequent attempt to escape from marking of the original of the same is absolutely of no force and same cannot be considered by this Commission. Moreover, there is no disparity exists among Ext. P3 and Ext. R3 and the documents remain one and same. If the complainant has any dispute with regard to the assessing made by the opposite parties his remedy lays some where else. Considering the entire case and evidence of the parties, the Commission finds that the complaint is devoid of merits.

          In the result complaint dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their respective cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15^th day of September 2020.

    Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                               Sd/-

Sreeja S                          Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair                C.T. Sabu

Member                          Member                                             President

                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 demand notice dtd. 05/03/2009 for Rs.9,032/-

Ext. P2 notice dtd. 05/03/2009 showing misuse of electricity

Ext. P3 copy of site Mahazar dtd. 03/03/2009 showing total connected load 1556

            watts.

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Ext. R1 & R2 is the office copy of Exts. P1 & P2.

Ext. R3 original of Ext. P3.

Id/-

Member