:BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of August 2012
Filed on : 26/08/2011
resent :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 465/2011
Between
O.P. Jose, : Complainant
Oliyappuram house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Malayinkeezhu, Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Kothamangalam.686 691.
And
1. Secretary, : Opposite parties
KSEB, Vydyuthy Bhavan, (party- in-person)
Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram-690 004.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section No. 2,
Kothamangalam-696 691.
O RD E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant is a domestic category consumer under the 2nd opposite party. The complainant had rented out the house to families. A motor was installed in the premises for pumping water for the houses situated in the premises. The facilities was allotted by the opposite parties at the time of connecting electricity supply. While so, a penal bill for Rs. 32,210/- dated 18-08-2011 was served on the complainant alleging that the motor installed in the premises has been using for non-domestic purpose and a dress pressing unit is functioning by using electric iron box. The complainant is not liable to remit the penal amount since the motor installed in the premises has been using solely for pumping water for the houses rented out. And the dress pressing unit was started in a small room two months back only. Coal is used for the iron box and that is evident from the low consumption to the tune of 21 units per month. The 2nd opposite party had assessed 2981 units consumption for fixing penalty as against the actual consumption of 246 units with respect to the dress pressing unit. Thereby fixing exorbitant amount as liability over the complainant. So the relief sought for in the complaint is to set aside the bill dated 18-08-2011.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:
The service connection ;is registered against the name of the complainant under the LT-IA tariff with a connected load of 1560 watts. When the service connection was given it was occupied by one family. An inspection was conducted at the premises of the consumer on 17-08-2011, it was found that the complainant was using electricity for commercial purposes. A centre for ironing all types of clothes with heavy electric iron box (1200 watts) was maintained near the corridor on the ground floor. Apart from that electricity was used for pumping water for 5 rental residences in the two storied building. The complainant is liable to pay the bill amount for Rs. 32,210/- as per Sec. 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Clause 50 and 51 of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply, 2005. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint.
3. The complainant and the opposite parties represented through counsel. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties . Heard both sides.
4. The following points deserve our attention.
i. Whether the impugned bill is justified in law?
ii. What are the reliefs if any?
5. The contention of the complainant is that he is a domestic category consumer and the motor installed in the premises has been using solely for domestic purposes. The dress pressing unit was started only two months back and coal is used for the iron box. Since the consumption for fixing penalty as against the actual consumption of 246 units.
6. The opposite parties averred that they found that the complainant had been using electricity for electric iron box in the dress pressing unit conducted in the premises. In addition to that electricity was used for pumping water for 5 rental residences.
7. Admittedly a dress pressing unit was conducted in the premises of the complainant. The complainant deposed that they had used the electricity when coal was not available. Nothing is before us to refute the contention of the complainant. With regard to the installation of motor the complainant contented that such facilities were approved by the opposite party at the time of electricity connection and he is using the same for domestic purposes only. In order to substantiate the said contention the complainant filed an I.A. No. 719/2011 for production of completion report of the consumer’s installation sketch, estimate, installation test certificate and the meter reading register with respect to the complainant’s electric connection. The same was allowed but the opposite parties failed to comply with the order. In view of that adverse inference can be drawn against them. Moreover the learned counsel for the complainant invited our attention to the schedule of Tariff-Retai/Supply Schedule of Tariff …Retail Supply by KSEB W.E.F 01/01/2010, in Manuel of Electricity laws in Kerala in which schedule of tariff in Low Tension 1 (LT -1) and a ‘Note’is given which reads as follows:
Note 1. Power supplies to common facilities such as water supply common lighting lifts, etc in multi-storied buildings mainly for domestic occupation shall be under the domestic tariff if the connected load other than domestic is less than 5% of the total load.
8. In the instant case the complainant has availed the connection for domestic purpose which is squarely within the ambit of the above provision. In the above circumstances the complainant is entitled to continue with the tariff under LT-1A category. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the disputed bill is liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly.
pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of August 2012
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Exbt. A1 : Copy of letter dt. 18-08-2011
A2 : Copy of bill
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 23-08-2011
Opposite party’s exhibits: : Nil
Deposition:
PW1 : Jose Paul
