KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Appeal No.344/2005 JUDGMENT DATED: 1.12.2007 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B, Pattom. Thiruvananthapuram 2. The Asst.Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B., Electrical Major Section, Eratupetta. 3. The Asst.Engineer, K.S.E.B., : APPELLANTS Electrical Section, Erattupetta. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
N.A.Kuttichan, : RESPONDENT Njallappuzhayil (H), Teekoy.P.O., Kottayam. (By Adv.P.V.Krishnakumar)
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant are the opposite parties/KSEB in OP.No. 204/04. The lower forum allowed the OP filed by the respondents herein seeking to cancel the ext. A1 penal bill for sum of Rs.18000/- It is the case of the petitioner that he is the domestic consumer of the opposite parties. His house is situated at an elevated place. It is mentioned that there is a PWD road in between his house and river flowing nearby. According to him the place is a rocky area and it is not feasible to dig a well. Hence in order to draw drinking water he dug a well on the banks of the river and pumped water from there to the over head tank in his property. According to him almost all the residents of the area are getting potable water in this way. On 4.6.04, it is alleged, that the KSEB employees checked the motor and obtained the signature of the wife of the petitioner. Thereafter a penal bill was issued under LT VII tariff. According to him he has not unauthorised additional load by any commercial purpose. The opposite party/appellants have contended that the complainant has not resorted to alternative remedies stipulated in the statute. It is mentioned that the petitioner had drawn wire unauthorisedly overhead crossing the road river bank connecting it to a motor of the capacity of 1.5 HP. Thus he was pumping water to the petitioners house and to the house of one V.K.Thomas. Moreover the act of the petitioner caused serious threat to the life and property of the general public. As per clause 24 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy extension taken for temporary purpose would attract LT VIII tariff. Such extension carries a fixed charge of Rs.50/- per KW. As a power of the motor was 1.5 the tariff applicable would be the charges for 2KW ie Rs.100 per day and for 6 months the sum would be Rs.18000/-. The evidence adduced consisted of ext.A1 to A3 and B1 to B3. No other evidence was adduced apart from filing affidavit by the respective parties, On a perusal of the judgment I find that forum below has not considered the relevant issuance involved. Once counter affidavits is filed and the case set up is denied, the petitioner is bound to prove the allegations raised. Further more the petitioner has admitted that she was using a motor placed on the banks of the river and drew the connection over a public road for which he has no authority at all and further the above act may result in fatal consequences. In the circumstances order of the forum below canceling as P1 bill is setaside. The matter is remitted back to the lower forum. The forum below will consider the matter afresh on merits and dispose of the same. The case will stand posted before the lower forum on 28.12.2007.
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
ps | 
