BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 18/10/2011
Date of Order : 30/08/2012
Present :-
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 572/2011
Between
Ulahannan.A.J., | :: | Complainant |
Arackal (H), Neriyamangalam.P.O., Kothamangalam. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, K.S.E.Board, | :: | Opposite Parties |
Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Electrical Section No.2, Kothamangalam – 686 691. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. P.B. Asokan & George C. Varghese Advocates, XL/4664, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 031) |
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
1. The facts of the complaint are :-
The complainant has availed electricity connection to his hotel which is conducted by him to earn his livelihood. The 2nd opposite party has issued a penal bill for having an excess load of 1 KW connected unauthoriszedly. According to the complainant, he is not liable to pay penal current charges. This complaint is filed to have the refund of the said amount.
2. The opposite parties have filed version. The complainant has not approached the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Eelctricity Act, 2003. The unauthorised load was penalized as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and clause 50 & 51 of the K.S.E. Board terms and conditions of Supply 2005. The bill for unauthorised load is issued after deducting the proportionate current charges already remitted.
3. No oral evidence for the complainant and Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the parties.
4. The points for determination :-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay penal current charges?
What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- The complainant is of the view that he is not liable to pay the penal current charges which forms part of Ext. A1 bill. The said bill seeks to levy penalty towards fixed charges and current charges. The amount charged towards current charges is Rs. 16,548/-.
6. The complainant was asked to pay Ext. A1 bill amount when it was found in an inspection by the Board that he was using load to the tune of 1 KW unauthorisedly. Ext. A2 is the report pertaining to the inspection.
7. There is no two views as to the fact that no consumer is authorized to connect load without the prior permission of the licensee. The act must be penalised. But we do not think it fair to ask a consumer to remit charges twice for the current he has consumed. There is no dispute that since consumption is recorded correctly by the meter installed by the Board, consumer has been remitting current charges as recorded in the meter from time to time. If there were excess load, naturally that will be reflected in the consumption and reading of the meter. Therefore in our view, there is no justification in levying carges once again for the same currect that had been consumed.
8. On the other hand, the opposite parties are justified in levying penally towards fixed charges for having exceeded the load without their permission as a mark of punishment for the unauthorised act.
9. Conclusively, the opposite parties are not entitled to levy the penal current charges.
10. To sum up, the complaint stands partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to limit the demand on the score of fixed charge as speficied in Ext. A1 bill dated 27-09-2011 and withdraw the demand on account of current charges.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of August 2013.
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 consumer bill dt. 27-09-2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the notice dt. 26-09-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
