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. 318/2011
Between
Shiyas. K.S., | :: | Complainant |
Proprietor, Kainees Bakery, Pezhakkapilly. P.O., Muvattupuzha. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvanathapuram. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Velloorkunnam, Market. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 673. |
| (By parties-in-person) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are :
The complainant is conducting a Bakery for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He is having electricity connection under LT VII A Tariff and his Consumer No. is 2-0. The original consumer of the electricity is Mr. Mytheen Valiyaparambil who is the building owner. While so, a penal bill dated 06-06-2011 for Rs. 24,879/- was issued to the complainant alleging unauthorized connected load to the tune of 2 KW. The penal bill is inclusive of Rs. 2,400/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs. 22,479/- 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. So the demand for Rs. 24.879/- is illegal and without any basis. The complainant is only liable to pay the penal fixed charge of Rs. 2,400/-. The demand for Rs. 24,879/- towards penal current charge is liable to be set aside. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite parties :
As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a consumer and on this ground itself, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The Sub-Engineer Sri. George Kuruvila inspected the premises on 24-05-2011 and found that an authorised load of 2 KW is connected and is being used. Based on this inspection a penal bill for Rs. 24,739/- was issued to the consumer for both fixed charge and current charge. As per Clause 37 (5) of K.S.E. Board Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 K.S.E. Board has every right to recover the amount under charged from the consumer.
3. The parties to this complaint did not primarily mount the box to adduce oral evidence. Ext. A1 was admitted in evidence for and on behalf of the complainant. Exts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2nd opposite party who appeared in person.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?
5. It is not in dispute that on 24-05-2011 the officials of the 1st opposite party inspected the electric meter as well the connected load of the complainant and found unauthorised connected load of 2 KW and consequently prepared Ext. B1 mahazar. On the basis of Ext. B1, the 2nd opposite party caused to issue Ext. A1 to the tune of Rs. 24,879/-. Ext. B1 was admitted in evidence without demur. No reason is on record to repudiate the contents in Ext. B1 whereby the decision 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”.
6. The counsel for the complainant maintains that the complainant is not liable to pay the penal current charge since the electricity unused by the complainant has been duly recorded in the energy meter and the complainant had paid the energy charges promptly. The above contention of the complainant is unsustainable in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Maria Palana Society Vs. K.S.E. Board and 3 Others. (WPC No. 12068 of 2009 (c) decided on 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 matter have been squarely confirmed as to the costs, consequences and results of law by this confirmed judgment, we do not depart.
7. In the above circumstances, the complainant is liable to pay the amounts as per Ext. A1 legally. The proceedings in this complaint stand closed with a direction to the complainant to take necessary steps forthwith to regularise the unauthorised connected load, if any.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th 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 :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 06-06-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the site mahazar dt. 24-05-2011 |
“ B2 | :: | Copy of audit enquiry report dt. 25-05-2011 |
“ B3 | :: | Copy of inspection report dt. 24-02-2011 |
=========
