KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

       VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM    

                                             APPEALNO.651/04

                          JUDGMENT DATED 23.6.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                        --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR              --  MEMBER

1.      The Secretary, KSEB,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,                             --  APPELLANTS

Thiruvananthapuram.

2.      The Asst.Ex.Engineer,

          Electrical Major Section

          Contonment, Kollam.

            (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

                   Vs.

M.M.Vijayakumaran Pillai,

Managing Director,

Business Chitty Fund,                               --  RESPONDENT

Beach Road, Kollam.

JUDGMENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAAN NAIR,MEMBER

          By the order dated 21.4.04 of CDRF, Kollam the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.P9 bill of Rs.68447/- and to issue a fresh bill for Rs.5670/- .  It is aggrieved by the said directions, that   the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

          2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he is a consumer under the opposite parties and that though  he was regularly paying the bills in respect of the electricity consumption made by him,  the second opposite party issued a bill for Rs.68,447/- on 30.7.01 directing him to pay the same on or before 14.8.01.  The complainant submitted that  there were no circumstances warranting the issue of  such a huge bill as he was regularly paying the bills and that  there was no additional load in his premises as alleged by the second opposite party.  His case is that the opposite parties are not entitled to release the bill and the same is liable to be cancelled.  Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill with compensation and costs.

          3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing  a detailed version wherein was contended that the complainant had exceeded his sanctioned loan and on an inspection on 26.7.01, it was found that the complainant had a total load of 10.605 KW.  It was submitted that the  sanctioned load of complainant was only 4 KW and as such there was an additional load of  7 KW  and finding that the complainant had violated the conditions of supply, the  bill was issued under regulation 42 (d) of the conditions of supply.   Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

          4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and  Exts. P1 to P11 documents were marked on the side of the complainant.   On the side of the opposite parties two witnesses were examined as DW1 and 2 and Ext.D1 was marked.

          5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below canceling the impugned bill and directing the opposite party to pay only the charges towards fixed  charges of the additional connected load amounting to Rs. 5670/- are illegal and unsustainable. It is his case that the Forum below had found that there was an additional load of 7 KW which was not permitted by the opposite parties.  The learned counsel further submitted that the Forum below had misread the provisions contained in regulation 42 (b) of the conditions of supply.  He has submitted that the Forum below ought to have found that the “respective tariff” included both fixed charge and current charges and in such an event the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint.

          6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on an appreciation of the order passed by the Forum below, we find that the Forum below had passed the order finding that the complainant had exceeded the sanctioned  load and that he was liable to pay charges for 7 KW which was unauthorisedly connected to the premises.   We further find that the site mahazer (D1) prepared by the officials of the board had been properly proved and as the  Forum below had also found that the complainant was liable to pay charges for 6 months at 3 times the rate applicable.  But the Forum below had failed in considering the fact that the regulation says about the charging for misuse of energy at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous 6 months from the date of detection of misuse.    The respective tariff does not   limit the charging for the fixed charges of the additional connected load.   The learned counsel has submitted before us that ‘respective tariff ’ includes the fixed charges  and the current charges and we find force in the said submission of the barred counsel.      Considering all these aspects, we find that the Forum below had gone wrong in calculating only the fixed charges of the additional unauthorized load for 6 months.    The opposite parties/appellants had issued the penal bill after fully convincing that the complainant had been using unauthorized additional load and it was only to  curb such tendencies  that the ‘conditions of the supply’   envisages the imposing of penal charges to be paid by such  erring consumers.    We find that the opposite parties had rightly issued the bill and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount.  The order of the Forum below limiting the amount to  Rs. 5670/- cannot be supported from  any corner.  The order passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside.  Hence we do so accordingly.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order dated 21.4.04 in OP 387/01 of CDRF, Kollam is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR  --  MEMBER

 M.V.VISWANATHAN  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

s/L