KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL NO.496/05 JUDGMENT DATED:21/7/08 PRESENT:- SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. Kerala State Electricity Board, represented by its Secretary, K.S.E.B. Vaidyuthy Bhavan, pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, : APPELLANTS Kottayam Central, Kottayam. 3. Asst.Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Kottayam Central Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs M/s.Gold Galaxy, registered Partnership firm having office at Good Shephered Complex, Good Spephered Street, : RESPONDENT Kottayam, through Managing Partner Sun George Abraham. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP No.403/02 of CDRF, Kottayam for come up in this appeal against the order dated 8/12/2004 whereby they are under orders to cancel Ext.A5 demand notice for Rs.69,492/- and issue a fresh bill for the period from 14/1/02 to 25/4/02 with cost of Rs.750/-. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a consumer of the opposite parties bearing Consumer No.6174 wherein he was running a business concern called Galaxy. It is his case that he was served with an additional bill for Rs.69,492/- on 27/4/02 alleged to have been issued for the unauthorized additional load of 5 KW. He has submitted before the Forum that he had paid all the bills issued by the opposite parties and the penal bill issued on 27/4/02 was without any basis as there was a generator of 30 KVA installed in his premises and material purposes were served through the said generator. It was also submitted by him that the business was started only in January 2002 and inspection by the opposite party was on 24/4/02. Even though the petitioner requested the opposite parties to review the mater in the light of the fact that the inspection parties were apprised of the fact that the generator was used for the major purposes and requested to cancel the bill, the opposite parties neglected and rejected the request and hence the petition was filed for directions to cancel the demand for Rs.69,492 with cost. The opposite parties in their version contended that the premises was inspected by the opposite parties on 25/4/02 and the mahazar was prepared wherein the additional load of 6 KW was detected and the penal bill for 6 months at thrice the rate was issued which was liable to be paid by the complainant. It was also submitted that the site mahazar was witnessed by the complainant also and their action in issuing the bill was only just and proper and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. The evidence consisted the affidavit of the petitioner and the 2nd opposite party Ext.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted before us that the order passed by the Forum canceling the additional bill issued is illegal and unsustainable. He submitted his arguments based on the contentions taken in the version and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the bill was issued under Rule 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy and also on the inspection report and site mahazar prepared by the inspecting authorities of the opposite parties. It is his further case that the opposite parties are empowered to issue a penal bill at thrice the rate for a period of previous six months from the date of inspection and in the present case the case of the complainant that he was using electricity from the generator is false and unacceptable. He also argued that the electrical inspector had given sanction for the use of generator only on 9/7/02 and prior to that the complainant was using electricity from the existing electrical connection given by the opposite parties. It is also argued that the complainant has approached the Forum without clean hands and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed only. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. It is submitted by him that the opposite parties also had no dispute that the business concern was started only on 14/1/02 and in such circumstance even if there was additional load the opposite parties can issue bill for the period from 14/1/02 to 25/4/02 which the Forum has found out and in such a circumstance the appeal is liable to be dismissed upholding the directions of the Forum below. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent we find that it is admitted by both the parties that the business concern of the respondent/complainant started only on 14/1/02. As per Clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy if the consumer exceeds the contracted load without prior permission of the Board he can be penalised at three times the rate applicable to the respective tariff for the previous six months from the date of detection of misuses unless there are convincing reasons for adapting different period. In the present case there is convincing proof that the complainant had started business only on 14/1/02. It is also admitted by the opposite parties and in such a circumstance the Forums direction to the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill and issue a fresh bill for the period from 14/1/02 to 25/4/02 can only be upheld. But the direction of the Forum to issue the bill without surcharge cannot be supported by us. As the complainant has exceed the contracted load without the permission of the opposite parties he is liable for payment of the penal charges though not for the whole six months. In such a circumstance he is liable to pay surcharge if any to be levied by the opposite parties. In the result the appeal is allowed in part modifying the order to the effect that the appellants are free to realise surcharge also for the bill that is to be issued for the period from 14/1/02 to 25/4/02. In the nature and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
