IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No.163/2010 (Filed on 27.11.2010)
Between:
Abey Thomas,
Wilson Studio Complex,
Mamukku, Ranni,
Residing at:
Puthenpurayil House,
Nellickamon. P.O.,
Angadi, Ranni,
Pathanamthitta Dist.
(By Adv. S. Manoj) ….. Complainant
And:
1. Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rep. by Secretary, KSEB,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom.P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section Office,
Ranni North,
Pazhavangadi.P.O., Ranni. ….. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that the complainant is conducting a software development unit at the premises in Wilson Studio Complex at Mamukku, Ranni and the said unit is having an electric connection with consumer No. 13638-0 under LT IV tariff. While the above unit was functioning initially as a software development unit, an additional unit of video recording was started in January 2010 which was inaugurated by the local MLA Sri. Raju Abraham and now the unit is functioning as a software development cum video recording unit. The complainant was regularly paying the electricity bills issued by the second opposite party. While so, on 19.04.2010, some officials of the opposite parties, claimed to be the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) inspected the premises of the complainant. Thereafter, the second opposite party issued a provisional bill dated 30.04.2010 for ` 77,846 along with a letter stating that the complainant’s tariff is converted to LT VIIA from LT IV alleging that video audio editing lab comes under LT VIIA tariff. It is also revealed that the assessment made in the provisional bill is from 11/2007 to 04/2010. The complainant filed his objection before the second opposite party against the provisional bill stating that video recording comes only under LT IV tariff and the video recording unit was started only in January 2010 along with photograph of the inaugural function. Even after the hearing, the second opposite party confirmed the provisional invoice bill as final alleging that the complainant had committed an offence under Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act. 2003. The assessment of the opposite parties that the video recording unit comes under LT VII A tariff is not correct and the assessment for 30 months from 11/2007 to 04/2010 is also illegal as the video recording unit started only in the month of January 2010. All the above said acts of the opposite parties is unfair trade practice and they are not entitled to convert the complainant’s tariff from LT IV to LT VIIA and to issue a bill for 30 months from 11/2007 to 04/2010. Hence this complaint for setting aside the tariff conversion and the impugned bill. The complainant also prays for allowing compensation of ` 20,000 along with cost of this proceedings.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version with the following contentions: According to the opposite parties, the electric connection provided to the complainant vide consumer No. 13638 under LT IV tariff is originally registered for software development. The APTS inspected the unit on 19.04.2010 and found that now the connection is also used for running an audio video editing and recording unit which comes under LT VIIA tariff. On the basis of the mahazar prepared by the APTS, a provisional bill for short assessment was issued to the complainant on 30.04.2010 for ` 77,846 and the tariff was changed to LT VIIA from LT IV as audio video editing and recording comes under LT VIIA tariff. On the basis of the objection filed by the complainant against the provisional bill, second opposite conducted a personal hearing on 18.06.2010 and after hearing the second opposite party came to the conclusion that the facts recorded in the site mahazar were correct and made the provisional bill as final and issued the final bill for ` 77,846. The complainant is liable to pay the final bill amount as it is found that the complainant had committed an offence under Sec.126 of Electricity Act 2003. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint as the opposite parties have not committed any illegal acts. With the above contentions, the opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DWs.1 to 3 and Exts. A1 to A6 and Exts. B1 and B2. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
6. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties having an electric connection vide consumer No. 13638 under LT IV tariff and he was running a software development cum video recording unit by using the above said electric connection. Subsequently, during January 2010, he started an audio video editing and recording unit in the software development unit. While so on 19.04.2010, the officials of the opposite parties inspected the unit and on the basis of the said inspection, opposite parties issued an additional bill for ` 77,846 alleging short assessment for a period of 30 months from 11/2007 to 04/2010 and converted the complainant’s electricity tariff from LT IV to LT VIIA alleging video editing and recording unit comes under LT VIIA tariff. According to the complainant, video editing does not comes under LT VIIA tariff and even if it comes under LT VIIA tariff, the complainant had started the said unit only in the year January 2010 and hence the assessment for 30 months cannot be justified. Complainant’s objection against the provisional invoice is also not considered by the opposite parties.
7. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 6 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the impugned bill dated 30.04.2010 for ` 77,846. Ext. A2 is the photocopy of the letter dated 30.04,2010 issued by the second opposite party in the name of the complainant in connection with Ext. A1 bill. Ext. A3 is the photograph of the inaugural function of the complainant’s audio video recording unit. Ext. A4 is the proceedings of the hearing dated 25.10.2010 conducted by the second opposite party. Ext. A5 is the photocopy of the cash receipt dated 27.11.2010 for ` 38,923 issued by the opposite parties on the basis of the order in IA.175/2010. Ext. A6 is the bill dated 11.09.2010 for ` 6,687 issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant under LT VIIA tariff.
8. On the other hand, opposite parties contention is that the connection in question was given to the complainant for using equipments comes under LT IV tariff. Subsequently, they have detected that the equipments installed in the said connection comes under LT VII A tariff as per the inspection of the ATPS conducted on 19.04.2010. Therefore, they have assessed the complainant under LT VII A tariff from 11/2007 to 4/2010 and issued the final bill for ` 77,846 after complying all statutory formalities as the complainant had violated the provisions of Sec.126 Electricity Act 2003. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount of the impugned bill and the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs prayed for in the complaint.
9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the authorized officer of the opposite parties filed a proof affidavit along with 2 documents and a witness schedule. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the authorized officer of the opposite parties is examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. The witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3. Ext.B1 is the site mahazar dated 19.04.2010 prepared by the APTS. Ext.B2 is the statement dated 18.06.2010 of the complainant recorded by the 2nd opposite party as part of the hearing conducted by the 2nd opposite party in connection with this dispute.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record. According to the complainant, the purpose for which the complainant using the power comes only under LT IV tariff and hence the issuance of Ext.A1 bill and the conversion of LT IV tariff to LT VIIA tariff is not sustainable and even if it is found that the consumption is under LT VII A tariff, the assessment could not be made from 11/2007 onwards as they have installed the new equipments only in the month of January, 2010. But according to the opposite parties, the consumption of the complainant comes under LT VII A tariff whereas the connection was provided under LT IV tariff and hence it is a clear case of unauthorized use of electricity which is an offence under Sec.126 of Electricity Act 2003 and hence the complaint is not allowable.
11. In this case, the opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to show the details and the description of the equipments connected initially at the time of providing connection and the details and descriptions of the equipments connected at the time of inspection of the premises. There is not even a whisper about the connected load or about the details of the equipments in Ext.B1 mahazar. Further, opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to show that on what date the new equipments were installed by the complainant. According to the complainant, they have installed the new equipments only in the month of January 2010. For substantiating this contention the complainant had also produced the photograph of the inaugural function which is marked as Ext.A3. But in the absence of the negative of the photographs and other cogent evidence supporting Ext.A3, we are not inclined to accept Ext.A3 photograph as a primary evidence. In the absence of proper evidence from either side the date of installation of the new equipments is not definite and cannot be ascertained. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to uphold Ext.A1 as a legal bill and therefore we are constrained to set aside Ext.A1 bill. However, the complainant clearly admitted that they are using the equipments which comes under LT VIIA tariff from January 2010 onwards. So they are liable to pay electricity charges under LT VIIA tariff. So the conversion of LT IV tariff to LT VIIA tariff is legal. Then comes the question which is the proper date for implementing LT VIIA tariff to the complainant. Since that particular date cannot be ascertained Sub Sec. 5 of Sec.126 of Electricity Act 2003 can be invoked for settling this dispute. The relevant portion of the said sub section is as follows:- ……………………. “however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection”. In the light of the said provision, the opposite parties are bound to issue a revised bill as per sub section 5 of Sec.126 Electricity Act 2003. On the basis of the above discussion, this complaint can be allowed in part.
12. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby Ext.A1 bill is hereby set aside, and the 2nd opposite party is directed to issue a revised bill for 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection dated 19.04.2010 under LT VIIA tariff. In the light of this order, the order in IA.176/2010 is vacated and the opposite party is directed to adjust the amount remitted by the complainant as per the order in IA. 176/2010 in the revised bill and the balance, if any, can be adjusted in the future bills. In the nature and circumstances of this case, no orders for cost and compensation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of January, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Aby Thomas
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the impugned bill dated 30.04.2010 for `
77,846 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
A2 : Photocopy of the letter dated 30.04.2010 issued by the
second opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Photograph of the inaugural ceremony of the
complainant’s audio video recording unit.
A4 : Proceedings dated 25.10.2010 of the hearing conducted
by the second opposite party.
A5 : Photocopy of the cash receipt dated 27.11.2010 for `
38,923 issued by the opposite parties on the basis of the
order in IA.175/2010.
A6 : Bill dated 11.09.2010 for ` 6,687 issued by the
opposite parties in the name of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Sheena John
DW2 : Manu Chandy
DW3 : Sreejith. S
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Site Mahazar dated 19.04.2010 prepared by the Sub
Engineer, Electrical Section, Ranni North.
B2 : Hearing statement
(By Order)
Sd/-
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Abey Thomas, Puthenpurayil House, Nellickamon.P.O.,
Angadi, Ranni, Pathanamthitta Dist.
(2) Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(3) Asst.Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Ranni North,
Pazhavangadi.P.O., Ranni.
(4) The Stock File.
