PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of October 2011
Filed on : 18-05-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 254/2011
Between
Vimal Alias Thomas, : Complainant
Proprietor, Thomson Medicals, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Koothattukulam. Road, Muvattupuzha)
And
1. Secretary, : Opposite parties
KSEB, Vydyuthy Bhavan, (party-in-person)
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section,
Koothattukulam-686 662.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is conducting a Medical Shop for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. He is having electricity connection under LT-VII A tariff and his Consumer No. is 8250. The original consumer of the electricity is the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath for who he has rented at the premises. While so, a penal bill dated 09-05-2011 for Rs. 16,998/- was issued to the complainant alleging unauthorized connected load to the tune of 2kw. The penal bill is inclusive of Rs. 2,400/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs. 14,598/- towards the penal current charges. The complainant is not liable to pay the above said penal current charge since the entire electricity consumed by the complainant has been recorded by the energy meter and the complainant had paid the energy charges promptly. Hence the demand for Rs. 14,598/- is illegal and without any basis. The complainant is only liable to pay the penal fixed charge of Rs. 2,400/-. The demand for Rs. 14,598/- towards penal current charge is liable to be set aside. The complainant is entitled to get set aside the demand for Rs. 14,598/- made in the bill dated 09-05-2011. This complaint hence.
2. Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The Electricity connection for the complainants rented room in the shopping complex owned by the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath has been effected under LT VII A tariff with a connected load of 150 W under the consumer No. 8250 of Electrical Section, Koothattukulam. While so, the Accountant General audit wing conducted auditing at Electrical Section, Koothattukulam during the month, April 2011 and noticed the discrepancies of disproportionate consumption with the connected load specified in the spot bill. On 25th April 2011, Sub Engineer in charge of the electrical Section conducted an inspection at the consumer’s premises and assessed the total connected load as 2156 W against the 150 W approved connected load specified in the bimonthly spot bill. Consequently, a provisional penal bill dated 09-05-2011 amounting to Rs. 15,688/- has been served to the consumer for the 2KW. The complainant is liable to pay the amount.
3. The parties did not mount in the box to give oral evidence. Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2nd opposite party who appeared in person.
4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill.
5. Admittedly, the officials of the opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and found an unauthorized connected load of 2KW. The 2nd opposite party prepared Ext. B1 mahazar and thereafter issued Ext. A1 bill to the tune of Rs. 15,688/- to the complainant which is under challenge here. Ext. B1 was admitted in evidence without demur.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (SC)1 has held that
“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 ”.
The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 since the electricity consumed by the complainant has been rendered in the electricity meter. We are not to appreciate the above contention in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Maria Palan Society Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and 3 others WP(C) No.12068 of 2009 (C) decided on 21-05-2009 which reads as follows:
“In my view, the contention raised by the petitioner is only to be rejected. As can be seen from Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended, once the Assessing Officer reaches the conclusion that unauthorized use of energy has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period an the assessment shall be at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. A reading of Section 45(3) (a) shows that charges for electricity certified by a distribution licensee include fixed charges in addition to the charges for the actual electricity supplied ad consumed. In the light of the above statutory provisions, the irresistible conclusion is that tariff includes both fixed charges and energy charges and that once the Assessing officer has reached the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, he is bound to make assessment at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable, which, includes the dues payable towards energy charges also. If that be so, the levy of penalty, as done in this case is unassailable and the petitioner cannot seek the relief sought for.”
6. We are only to up held the better wisdom of the Hon’ble High Court
Therefore, and to conclude the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 bill. The proceedings in this complaint stand closed with a direction to the complainant to take immediate steps to get the unauthorized connected load regularize.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits ;
Ext. A1 : Provisional bill dt.09-05-2011
Opposite party’s exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Site Mahazar
B2 : Copy of bill dt. 22-03-2011
