BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16/06/2011

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 317/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is conducting an ice cream shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He is having electricity connection under LT VII A Tariff and his Consumer No. is 10135. The original consumer of the electricity is Mr. P.B. Cyriac who is the building owner. While so, a penal bill dated 06-06-2011 for Rs. 16,617/- was issued to the complainant alleging unauthorised connected load to the tune of 1 KW. The penal bill is inclusive of Rs. 1,200/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs. 12,417/- towards the penal current charges. The complainant is not liable to pay the penal current charge, since the electricity consumed by the complainant has been recorded in the energy meter and the complainant had paid the energy charges promptly. Hence the demand for Rs. 12,417/- is illegal and without any basis. The complainant is only liable to pay the penal fixed charge of Rs. 1,200/-. The demand for Rs. 12,417/- towards penal current charge is liable to be set aside. Thus, the complainant is before us with a prayer to set aside the disputed bill.

2. The version of the opposite parties :

The complainant is running an ice cream shop named Adeep Stores at Pulinchuvadu, Muvattupuzha bearing Consumer No. 10135 in LT VII A tariff under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Velloorkunnam. The service connection is owned by Sri. P.B. Cyriac and the authorised load was only 660 W. The officials of the 1^st opposite party inspected the premises on 24-05-2011 and found that an unauthorised load of 1 KW is connected and is being used. Based on this inspection a penal bill for Rs. 13,617/- was issued to the consumer for both fixed charge and current charge. The consumer had not sought relief by filing objection petition under Section 126 or filing appeal under Section 127 of Indian Electricity Act 2003. The complainant is legally liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question.

3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Ext. A1 and Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party who appeared in person.

4. The only point that emanates for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill under dispute?

5. Admittedly Ext. B1 mahazar goes to show that on 24-05-2011, the officials of the 1^st opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and found use of unauthorised connected load of 1 KW. On the basis of Ext. B1, the 2^nd opposite party issued Ext. A1 bill to the tune of Rs. 13,617/-. It is pertinent to note that Ext. B1 has been admitted in evidence without demur. No reason is before us to reject the contents in Ext. B1 mahazar which is contentious to the contra. We rely on the Judicial pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwini Kumar IV (2010) CPJ SC Page 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 7 held that, “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 specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific protest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the report on record, it bears two signatures of the consumer/consumer's representatives, on with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report. The words 'under protest' have been recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the ambiguity in the protest raised by the consumers.” Which sustains our findings squarely.

6. The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is not liable to pay the penal current charge since the electricity consumed by the complainant has been recorded in the energy meter. We do not have to agree with the arguments of the learned counsel in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Maria Palana Society Vs. K.S.E. Board & 3 Others (WPC) No. 12068/2009 dated 21-05-2009), held that “In my view, the contention raised by the petitioner is only to be rejected. As can be seen from Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended, once the Assessing Officer reaches the conclusion that unauthorised use of energy has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period and the assessment shall be at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. A reading of Section 45 (3)(a) shows that charges for electricity certified by a distribution licensee include fixed charges in addition to the charges for the actual electricity supplied and consumed. In the light of the above statutory provisions, the irresistible conclusion is that tariff includes both fixed charges and energy charges and that once the Assessing Officer has reached the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, he is bound to make assessment at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable, which, includes the dues payable towards energy charges also. If that be so, the levy of penalty, as done in this case is unassailable and the petitioner cannot seek the relief sought for.” The dictum laid by the Hon'ble High Court applies in this case squarely. Not controverted.

7. For the above reasons, we are of the firm view that the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 bill. The proceedings in this complaint stands closed for reasons stated above with a direction to the complainant to take immediate steps to regularize the unauthorised connected load, if any and found so.

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

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========