KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 257/2009 JUDGEMENT DATE : 27-02-2010 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANTS 1. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Electrical Section, Dharmasala, Cannannoor. 3. Secretary, K.S.E.B, Vydyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Balachandran) Vs RESPONDENT Puthalath Chandran, Puthalathu House, Mangad, Kallasseri P.O., Cannannoor. JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 17-06-2008 in OP No. 90/2005, the CDRF, Kannur has directed the opposite parties to cancel all the penal bills issued to the complainant and to revise the entire disputed bills at the rate of Rs. 2.45 per unit with a further direction to adjust the excess amount paid by the complainant in his future bills. The Forum has also directed the opposite parities to exclude the payment of interest of Rs. 283/- and Rs. 299/- shown in the bills of June 2003 and July 2003 respectively. The Forum has further directed the opposite parties to reconnect the supply of the consumer/complainant without realizing any charges and to pay costs of Rs. 500/- for the proceedings initiated by the complainant before the Forum. 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 directions contained in the order of the Forum below. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum in brief is that he is a consumer of the opposite parties with consumer No. 4286 and the same is taken for running a small-scale unit and that due to some difficulties he could not run the unit from 1999 onwards. Though he had been remitting the minimum charges continuously, the opposite parties issued a bill for Rs. 5,762/- on taking the meter reading in October 2001. Though the rate was excessive he remitted the bill under protest. It is his case that subsequently he had been issued with a bill for Rs. 14155/- alleged to be a penal bill for the reason that the current that was taken for industrial purpose was used for hotel business. The complainant submitted before the Forum that he had never committed any such acts and that the opposite parties had willfully issued the bill only to harass the complainant. It is also his case that it was only on remittance of Rs. 3,500/- that his connection was restored consequent to the intervention of the Deputy Chief Engineer concerned. The complainant submitted before the Forum that the bill issued was contrary to law and facts and that he was liable to pay only at the rate of Rs. 2.45 per unit and prayed for a direction to the opposites parties to revise the bill accordingly. 3. The opposite parties filed version denying the case of the complainant and submitted that the consumer/complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the service connection agreement. It was submitted by them that the supply was given for industrial purpose and it was used for commercial purpose and hence the bill was issued charging Rs. 5.40/- per unit, which is liable to be paid by the complainant. It was also their case that the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB, Kannur had audited the accounts of the opposite parties and it was as per his directions that the penal bills were issued. Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents A1 to A15. The Assistant Engineer of the opposite parties has been examined as DW1. On the side of the opposite parties, no documents are seen produced by them. 5. Heard the Counsel for the appellants and the respondent who appeared in person. The respondent has also filed his argument note supporting the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued the case based on the contentions taken in the version as well as the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the Forum below was not correct in allowing the case of the complainant and that the said order is liable to be set aside. It is further argued by him that the complaint was not maintainable before the Forum as per Section 145 of the Electricity Act. It is also contended by him that the Forum ought to have found that there was unauthorized use of electricity for commercial purpose by the complainant and in the said situation the order is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel canvassed for the position that the Forum below did not appreciate the pleadings and evidence adduced by the opposite parties in the correct perspective and in such situation also the said order is liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant who appeared in person supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum below. He has submitted that though he had remitted the first bill for Rs. 5,762/- it was done so under protest and that he did not know that it was under a different tariff that that particular bill was issued. He has also denied the case of the opposite parties that there was misuse of energy and he disputed the pleadings of the opposite parties that he had used electricity for commercial purpose at any point of time. The respondent further submitted that the opposite parties had never produced any documents in support of their pleadings and that the opposite parties had complied with the order except the issuance of a revised bill as directed by the Forum below. He has also advanced the contention that the appeal is liable to be set aside with cots to the respondent. 8. On hearing both sides and on perusing records, we find that the complainant had remitted the bill for Rs. 5,762/- and was subsequently remitting the minimum charges for a considerable period. It is also seen that on getting the penal bill he had approached the opposite parties and as soon as that was denied by the second opposite party, he made a representation to the Deputy Chief Engineer who inturn directed the opposite parties to reduce the charges to Rs. 2.45 per unit. The proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kannur is marked as Ext.A15. On a perusal of the same, we find that the Deputy Chief Engineer has directed the officers of the KSEB to reduce the rate of charge to Rs. 2.45/- after adjusting the excess amount collected from the complainant. It is also observed that apart from the bare pleading that the complainant was misusing electricity by consuming the same under different tariff, no evidence is adduced in support of the said pleadings by the opposite parties. It is the very settled position that pleading in itself cannot constitute evidence. In the said circumstance, we find that the issuance of penal bill by the opposite parties under the guise of misuse of energy is against the legal principles and natural justice. The complainant had to remit Rs.3,500/- for restoring his supply as per directions of the Deputy Chief Engineer. The Deputy Chief Engineer had also directed the opposite parties to revise the tariff and issue bills at the rate of Rs. 2.45. The Forum below has appreciated the entire evidence adduced by the complainant and has passed the order accordingly. It is also noted that the Forum below has not allowed the case of the complainant in total. Though the complainant had prayed for the cancellation of the bills with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, it is observed that the Forum has given liberty to the opposite parties to issue revised bills at the rage of Rs. 2.45 per unit and to refund the interest collected from him and has negatived the prayer of the complainant for compensation. Only a nominal sum of Rs. 500/- has been awarded as costs. Thus we do no find any error or illegality in the directions issued by the Forum and it is also noted that the opposite parties/appellants have complied with the order partially. In the said circumstances, we feel that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and we do so accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the Forum below in OP No. 90/05 of CDRF, Kannur is confirmed and the appellants are directed to comply with the remaining directions of the Forum below within a month positively. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. | 
