BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the day of 30th day of April 2012 Filed on : 10-02-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 68/2010
Between
Shoukath Ali K.P. : Complainant
S/o.Eramulan, Proprietor, (By Adv. George Cherian
Park Avenue Hotel, 1/652, Karippaparambil, Karippaparambil
Princes Street, Fort Kochi, Associates, HB-48, Panampilly
Kochi-1. Nagar, Kochi-682 036)
And
Kerala State Electricity Board : Opposite party
Electrical Section, (By Adv. P.B. Asokan & George C
Fort Kochi, Varghese, XL/4664, Banerji road,
rep. by the Sub Engineer. Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031)
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is running a hotel for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The complainant is having 3 phase electricity connection under LT-7A tariff with consumer No. 11589 from the opposite party. On 21-05-2008, the opposite party inspected the hotel premises and prepared a Mahazar and issued a demand dated 28-05-2008 for Rs. 83,599 as penal charges stating that there is additional load of9 KW. Complainant remitted the amount under protest. The opposite party assured to consider the objections of the complainant on payment of the amount. On 27-05-2008 the complainant submitted an application to enhance the connected load. As instructed by the opposite party the complainant remitted Rs. 125/-on 21-07-2008 and Rs. 88,000/- on 23-07-2008. The matters being so the opposite party issued a bill dated 30-01-2010 demanding to pay a further amount of Rs. 78,801/- stating that as per the audit report there is a short assessment and directed to pay the amount on or before 11-02-2010. The demand of Rs. 83,599/- and Rs. 78,801/- are against the Indian Electricity Act 2003. The opposite party has wrongly issued the demand on the basis of mis-calculation. Thus the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs.
i. to set aside the bill for Rs. 83,599/- and to credit the same with 12% interest due their from 28-05-2008.
ii. to set aside the demand for Rs. 78,801/- dated 30-01-2010
iii. to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to this complainant.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The complainant is having a 3 phase electricity connection with consumer No. 11589 under 7A tariff with sanctioned load of 8 KW. The KSEB officials conducted a surprise inspection in the premises on 26-09-2005 and detected an unauthorized additional load of 9 KW over the sanctioned load of 8 KW. The complainant was penalized as per law. Since he has not turned up to regularize the additional load thereafter the penalty was continued for the fixed charge portion. Meanwhile the Electricity Act (Amendment 2007) came into force in 2007, KSEB issued a letter dated 07-02-2008. As per the order 2 times fixed charge and proportionate energy charge should be charged for additional load. Due to oversight the penalty was continued for the fixed charge portion only. In the mean time another inspection was conducted on 21-05-2008. During inspection it was noticed that the complainant had consumed another additional load of 9.KW over and above previously detected 9 KW additional load. The petitioner was then penalized for the fixed and proportionate energy portion and the complainant remitted the amount without any objection. The additional load was regularized on 22-07-2008. During the audit omission was noticed in demanding proportionate energy charge on 9 KW additional load (deducted during 26-09-2005) for the period from August 2007 to July 2008. The disputed bill has been issued to the complainant on that count. The complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill.
3. Witness for the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A7 were marked. Witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 83,599/- as per the bill dated 28-05- 2008?
ii. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill dated 13-01-2010?
iii. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?
5. Point No. i. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 609/2010 dated 10-02-2010 the opposite party was directed not to disconnect the electrical supply to the complainant’s hotel bearing consumer No.11589 until further orders.
6. Ext. A1 is the site mahazar prepared by the officials of the KSEB dated 21-05-2008. On the basis of Ext. A1 the opposite party issued Ext. A2 bill dated 28-05-2008 and the complainant remitted the amount on 28-05-2008 evidenced by Ext. A3 receipt. It is pertinent to note that nothing is on record to overcome the findings of the opposite party in Ext. A1 mahazer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (SC)1 has held as follows:
“the inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific pretest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the reports on record, it bears to signatures of the consumer/consumer’s representatives, one with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report. The words ‘under protest’ have been recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the ambiquity in the protest raised by the consumers ”.
In the instant case there is nothing in evidence to go or prove the protest that is said to be raised by the complainant on account which only goes to substantially unnecessarily take up the time of this Forum. On account of the same alone is the complainant not entitled to get refund of the amount as per Ext. A3 receipt which he has willingly remitted which is reprobation he can not recall.
7. Point No. ii. Ext. A7 is the impugned bill to the tune of Rs. 78,801/- dated 11-02-2010. Even according to the opposite party the bill was issued based on an inspection which had been conducted on 26-09-2005. There is no reasonable explanation on the part of the opposite party for such an inordinate delay in issuing the same. The present demand by way of Ext. A7 is untenable especially in view of Regulation 18(8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 which reads as follows:
“The Licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as arrears of the charges of electricity supplied”
8. In the above circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that that the impugned bill is barred by limitation and the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the bill nothing further.
9. Point No. iii. Since the primary grievance of the complainant has been squarely met an order of compensation and costs is not necessarily called for legally.
10. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i.The order in I.A. No. 169/2010 dated 10-02-2010 is
made absolute.
ii. We set aside Ext. A7 penal bill issued to the
complainant.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of site mahazar
A2 : Bill dated 28-05-2008
A3 : Receipt
A4 : True copy of letter dt. 27-05-2008
A5 : Receipt dt. 21-07-2008
A6 : Receipt dt. 23-07-2008
A7 : Bill dated 0-01-2010
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of joint surprise inspection
report dt. 26/09/2005
B2 : Copy of site mahazar
B3 : Copy seizure mahazar
Depositions:
PW1 : C. Prakash
DW1 : C.S. Sunil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post : By Hand:
