PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012
Filed on : 07/04/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 193/2011
Between
Shibu K.O., : Complainant
Kakkanattu house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Nellikuzhy P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Kothamangalam.
Vs
1. Secretary, : Opposite parties
KSEB, Pattom P.O., (By Adv. P.B. Asokan
Thiruvananthapuram. & George C. Varughese,XL/4664,
Banerji road, Ernakulam,
Kochi-682 031.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section No. 1,
Kothamangalam.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is the owner of a residential building. The building was provided with electricity connection under the domestic trariff and the Consumer No. is 27434. The building was rented out for residential purpose. While so, the Anti Power Theft squad of the 1st opposite party conducted an inspection on 20-08-2007. They have issued a penal bill for Rs. 39,995/- alleging that the premises was being used for hostel purpose, instead of domestic purpose. Aggrieved by the assessment, the complainant filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Perumbavoor. He forwarded it to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party confirmed the penal bill by order dated 22-02-2010. They have also changed the tariff to LT VII A. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Chief Engineer by depositing 50% of the assessed amount. He had also confirmed the order of the 2nd opposite party by order dated 17-12-2011. Subsequently a dismantling notice dated 05-02-2011 was issued to the complainant demanding to pay Rs. 37,083/-. The finding of APTS that the complainant was conducting a hostel in his premises is absolutely false. The building was not used for hostel purpose and there were no inmates in the building other than a house watcher. The complainant had planned to start a hostel in the premises in September 2007 that is after the classes stating in the nearby college. In the meantime complainant submitted application for retaining the connection to the LT 1 a (domestic) category. But instead of changing the tariff to LT I a, the electricity supply was disconnected. Thereafter reconnection fee was also remitted. But the supply was not reconnected so far. The complainant is entitled for the reconnection of the electricity supply. The complainant is not liable to pay the penal bill for Rs. 39,995/-. The complainant is entitled for the refund of the 50% of the penal bill he remitted for filing the appeal. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the opposite party.
The complainant was provided with a service connection under LT-1a tariff. The Anti Power Theft Squad detected misuse of tariff by the complainant on their inspection dated 20-08-2007. The tariff was changed to LT-VII A and penal bill to the tune of Rs. 39,995/- was issued. The Deputy Chief Engineer dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant vide order dated 17-12-2010 stating that there is no ground for withdrawing the penalty imposed on the complainant for misuse of tariff. The APTS prepared the site mahasar in the presence of the hostel warden and it was categorically stated that the premises functions as a men’s hostel with the name “Presidency Men’s” Hostel. The complainant utilized the residential premises as a hostel without obtaining permission of the opposite party. An unauthorized load of 2 KW was detected in the premises. The supply was disconnected due to non remittance of the demand for Rs. 37,083/- The complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. The 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1, Exts. B1 was marked on the side. Ext. X1 also was marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get reconnection of
the electricity supply.
ii. Whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 37,083/- as
demanded by the opposite parties?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the 50%
of the penal bill which the complainant had remitted. ?
5. Point No. i. At the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. 215/2011 dated 08-04-2011 this Forum directed the 2nd opposite party to reconnect the electricity supply to the complainant’s premises. The opposite parties dully complied with the above direction. So further decision in this point is uncontroverted.
6. Point Nos. ii &iii. During evidence the complainant stated that he has erected a board in front of the house as “Presidency men’s Hostel” where the officials conducted an inspection. Moreover the complainant has affixed a notice in front of the house inviting inmates to the hostel. However admittedly at the time of inspection by the officials of the opposite parties no inmates were seen at the premises. According to the opposite parties the boys studying in the nearby educational institution had stayed in the hostel and vacated the premises after completion of their course and the hostel is to be restarted when the classes of the next batch begins in the institution. There is no evidence on record to show that the complainant was running a hostel at the time of inspection by the officials of the opposite parties. Ext. X1 goes to show that the 2nd opposite party had changed the tariff in September 2007 and thereafter issued the impugned bills under commercial tariff . Since there is no evidence to prove the misuse of electricity by the complainant , the complaint is only liable remit the electricity charges under domestic category. So we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is not liable to pay penal charges as pr Ext. A1 the disputed bill.
7. In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. We set aside Ext. A1 penal bill
ii. The 2nd opposite party is at liberty to issue a fresh bill under domestic category for the disputed period.
iii. The remitted amounts shall be adjusted in the fresh bill to be issued to the complainant.
iv. The complainant is directed to take immediate steps to regularize the excess connected load of 2 kw as per the findings of the opposite parties failing which the 2nd opposite party is free to take appropriate legal action against the complainant.
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 July 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of demanding notice dt. 05-02-2011
A2 : Copy of Appeal complaint
A3 : Copy of proceedings dt. 22-02-2010
A4 : Copy of proceedings of KSEB dt. 17-12-2010
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 06-01-2011
X1 : Statement
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
B1 : Site Mahazar
Depositions :
PW1 : Shibu
DW1 : Shajahan V.H.
