PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2012
Filed on : 01-10-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 525/2011
Between
Sabura Ibrahim Kareem, : Complainant
Chakkapilliyil house, (By Adv. Tom Josph,
Market P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. Secretary : Opposite parties
KSEB, Vydyuthy Bhavan, (2nd op by Adv. P.B. Asokan& George C
Pattom, Varghese, XL/4664, Banerji road,
Thiruvananthapuram. Ernakulam, Kochi-682 031.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section No. 1,
Muvattupuzha-686 661.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The complainant discloses the following facts:
Complainant is a consumer of electricity supplied by opposite parties to the mobile phone shop run by her. On the basis of inspection conducted on 09-06-2011 2nd opposite party issued penal bill of Rs. 5,735/- for unauthorized connected load. The amount was remitted on 27-06-2010 and the unauthorized load was regularized. Then on 14-09-2011 another bill for Rs. 41,667/- was served for unauthorized connected load of 2KW. Complainant is of the view that he is not liable to pay the said amount as the connected load was regularized on payments ;of Rs. 5,735/- earlier. Moreover she has been regularly paying according to the consumption registered by the electric meter.
2. In the version filed by opposite parties, it is stated that the second bill was issued on the basis of findings in the inspection conducted under direction by the Principal. Accountant General when they found that there was an unauthorized load of 2 KW. The details of calculations have been described in the version. Rs. 41,667/- is the back charged amount which was duly demanded from the complainant. Hence it is urged that the complaint be dismissed.
3. No oral evidence to the complainant. Exts.A1 to A3 marked for her. Opposite party; has no evidence. Both parties were heard.
4. The short points for determination are:
i. Whether the impugned bill is valid?
ii. What are the reliefs, if any
5.There is no dispute regarding issuance of the impugned Ext.A1 bill. The complainant contends that he has once paid for the unauthorized load as per the Ext. A4 bill and got the connection regularized he has no liability to pay the amount shown in Ext. A1. Moreover, once he had been duly charged, it is not, legal for the opposite parties to demand once again to pay. The opposite parties contend that they have authority to penalize for unauthorized load under clause 50(5) and (6) of KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005. The rate of levy is two times the tariff applicable over the period of unauthorized use of electricity or if it is not certain, for; a period of 12 months. The claim of Rs. 41,667/- is justified. It is admitted that the consumer regularized the connected load on 17-06-2011. But the complainant remitted only the penal bill amount of Rs. 5,753/- but the arrear of Rs. 41,667/- is still pending.
Unfortunately we cannot support the above contentions raised by opposite parties. It is admitted in paragraphs 7 of their version that complainant remitted Rs. 5,753/- when the bill was issued after the inspection of the Accountant General. Also it is admitted that the unauthorized load was regularized, it is not in dispute that impugned bill to the tune of Rs. 41,667/- was issued subsequently on 14-09-2011. We are of the view that it was not fair on the part of the opposite parties to demand on the score of excess load after having it been regularized after receiving Rs. 5,753/-. We think the doctrine of estoppel would preclude the opposite parties from making a claim once the matter has been settled on payment of the aforesaid sum. Moreover there is dearth of material evidence to support the contentions of the opposite parties. Apart from the averments made in the version, there is no materials before us to prove that Ext. A1 bill was issued in furtherance of inspection under the direction of Accountant General. There is no mahasar of inspection or not even the copy of inspection report submitted by the officers. To be frank, we totally in the dark as to the contentions raised by the opposite parties. In that view, we have no other go than supporting the pleas made by the complainant. Hence we have no hesitation in setting aside Ext. A1 bill.
6. Accordingly the complaint stands allowed and Ext. A1 bill is set aside. No order as to costs.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2012.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 Copy of bill of additional load
from 06/10/2010
A2 : Copy of bill dt. 12/06/2012
A3 : Copy of bill
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
