BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 12/10/2009

Date of Order : 29/07/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 540/2009

Between

 

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The facts of the complaint can be summarised as follows :

The complainant conducts a car service centre and car beauty shop on the same premises to earn his livelihood. The permitted connected load is 20 KW. While so, the 2^nd opposite party issued a penal bill to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- on the ground of unauthorised extension of electrical power and purported use of 5 KW unauthorisedly. According to the complainant, the allegation of unauthorised extension is baseless as the two units are being conducted in the same building. Moreover, the extended connected load is very much below the permitted limit of 20 KW. Therefore, the complainant contends that the issuance of penal bill without any supporting reason tantamounts to deficiency in service and hence urges us to set aside the impugned bill

2. But the version filed by the opposite parties tells a different story. The complainant is running an engineering workshop under industrial tariff (LT IV) with connected load of 20 KW. The APTS Wing of K.S.E. Board, on a surprise inspection detected an unauthorised extension of approximately 5 KW to another premise namely Goodluck Car Beauty shop and Ideal Maruthi Service Centre. The extension was carried out using weather proof wire and parallel meter was installed in M/s. Goodluck Car Beauty shop and M/s. Ideal Maruthi Service Centre. The detailed account of the inspection is given in the version along with the break-up of the unauthorised use and the total of the unauthorised extension is computed to be nearly 5 KW. Hence they justify the computation of the bill. According to the opposite parties, the service connection procured for industrial purpose was misused unauthorisedly for commercial purpose. Hence they want us to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked for him. Witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1. No documentary evidence. On the closure of the evidence, the learned counsel on both sides were heard.

4. The short point to be addressed by us is as to whether there was any unauthorised extension and misuse of electrical power by the complainant?

5. The complaint arises out of a penal bill issued to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party on finding that there was misuse of electricity by him by unauthorisedly extending electrical connection to a separate unit. The complainant challenges the demand on the ground that there is no unauthorised extension and the electrical power used is within the sanctioned limit of 20 KW.

6. On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that Consumer No. 7501 being an Engineering workshop under industrial tariff (LT IV), there was unauthorised extension of 4875 W to another premise running two units by names Goodluck Car Beauty shop and Ideal Maruthi Service Centre. This was detected by APTS wing of the 1^st opposite party on 23-09-2009. They also contend that the extension was carried out using weather proof wire and parallel meter was installed in M/s. Goodluck Car Beauty Shop and M/s. Ideal Maruthi Service Centre. The details regarding the instruments installed and the respective capacity also have been given in the version.

7. According to the complainant, there was no extension as the units are working in the same building. He has produced Ext. A3 series to show that all the units are working in the same building. We are at a loss to consider these documents in advancement of the above argument. Moreover, what is contended by the opposite parties is not that the units are functioning in separate buildings, but that the connection procured by the complainant for industrial purposes has been misused for commercial purpose in as much as unauthorised extension is taken to the commercial units of Goodluck Car shop and Ideal Maruthi Service Centre. It is significant to notice that they have found out this unauthorised use by following the legal procedure of conducting inspection and preparing the mahazar which has been produced as Ext. A2 by the complainant. We cannot simply overlook the credibility of such a document prepared by responsible officers of the 1^st opposite party. We are reinforced in our opinion by the following observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar (IV (2010) CPJ 1 (SC), where it has been stated 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 a specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct.”

8. The opposite parties have contended that the impugned Ext. A1 bill has been issued since the complainant has violated Regulation 26(2) of Terms and conditions of supply 2005, where it has been stated that the supply taken from an existing point/remains to appliance situated out side the premises will be treated as extension. In fact, the compliant makes only a faint attempt to defend him and he tacitly admits that there is extension. The only defence put up by the complainant is that these two units are functioning in the same building. The opposite parties have calculated the penal interest by applying the formula provided as per Regulation 50 (1) of the Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 which again has not been challenged by the complainant. We are not much concerned about the question whether the sanctioned capacity of 20 KW has been exceeded or not because, the question to be addressed here is whether there has been extension of electricity unauthorised by made and thereby the electricity connection obtained for industrial purpose has been misused for commercial purpose. We think the opposite parties have fairly succeeded in convincing us that there was an unauthorised extension for the promotion of their commercial purpose by using electrical energy which has been supplied by the opposite parties for industrial purpose.

9. A question whether the Forum has authority and power to entertain such a complaint before the complainant has exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the 1^st opposite party. In order to support their view, they have cited the finding of the Hon'ble High Court in Catholic Reformation Literature Society Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board. We are of the view that the ruling of the Hon'ble Court is misplaced in this context, because a person availing electrical connection to his premises has an overriding right to approach the Forum straight away with a complaint without exhausting the remedies provided under Section 127 of the Electricity Act 2003, in view of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act. Incidentally, it may be borne in mind that this question was not raised before the High Court in the above case.

10. In view of the discussion we just had, the complaint stands dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of July 2011.