IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2011. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.78/09 (Filed on 04.06.2009) Between: Smt. Susan Daniel, Melody Park, Elakolloor. (By Adv. Czijy Chacko) ..... Complainant And: 1. The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. 3. Asst. Engineer, -do. –do. 4. Sub Engineer in Charge, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties vide Con.No.13615 of Pathanamthitta Section. The complainant is paying her electrical bill regularly according to her consumption. On 25.5.09 in her absence the Asst. Executive Engineer came to the premises and issued a site mahazar stated that she is using 10020 watts totally. On 28.5.06, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Section issued a provisional bill for an amount of ` .28,903.90 and the bill is unsigned. The complainant has no unauthorised connected load and she is using electricity according to her watts allotted. The calculation done by the electrical authority is wrong. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to not disconnect the connection till the disposal of the suit, to direct the opposite party to recheck the load again and to pay compensation and cost to her. 3. The 2nd opposite party has filed a common version for the other opposite parties also raising the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable before the Forum as the complainant is running a commercial firm, therefore the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act. On 25.5.09, the Division Squad inspected the complainant’s premises and prepared a site mahazar in the presence of a staff of the complainant’s company. The site mahazar revealed that the consumer was using an additional load of 3880 watts against a sanctioned load of 6140 watts. The inspection was conducted as per Sec.126 of Electricity Act 2003 and Clause 28 of Electricity Supply Code 2005 and assessment is made as per this provision. On 30.5.09 provisional bill along with notice and calculation sheet were served to the complainant. The complainant’s sanctioned load is 6140 watts. The actual connected load at the complainant’s premises was 10020 watts against the sanctioned load of 6140 watts, i.e. an unauthorised connected load of 3880 watts was connected up and used by the complainant. 4. As per Sec.126(3) of Electricity Act 2003, if any person is aggrieved while serving notice under sub sec.(2) shall be entitled to file objection before the assessing officer and person aggrieved by the decision of the assessing officer can prefer appeal before the appellate authority. In this case the complainant neither approached the assessing officer nor the appellate authority. The complainant can challenge before the Forum only the final bill issued by the assessing officer. Hence the complainant is challenging the provisional bill hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The opposite parties have also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.355/2004 and 371/2006 (2008 CTJ (CP) NCDRC). Hence the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. From the above pleadings, following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs & Costs? 6. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the complainant’s authorised representative as PW1 and Ext.A1 and Ext.A4 marked. For the opposite parties, two witnesses are examined as DW1 and DW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 7. The complainant’s case is that on 25.5.09 the Division Squad of the opposite parties inspected the complainant’s premises and prepared a mahazar. ON the basis of the mahazar they have issued a bill for an amount of Rs.28,904. According to the complainant, she is regularly paying the current bills issued by the opposite parties and was using the connected load sanctioned to him. Therefore she is not liable to pay the bill issued to her by the opposite parties. Hence the complainant prayed for set asiding the penal bill issued to her and for allowing other reliefs sought for in the complaint. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant’s authorised representative examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 marked. Ext.A1 is the authorisation in favour of PW1. Ext.A2 is the mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta, after inspecting the complainant’s premises. Ext.A3 is the notice sum calculation statement issued to the complainant by the Sub Engineer in charge, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A4 is the Provisional bill dated 28.5.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. 9. Opposite parties have cross-examined PW1. 10. The opposite parties contention is that the Division Squad of opposite parties had inspected the complainant’s premises and detected unauthorised connected load and prepared a site mahazar. The complainant was using unauthorised additional load of 3880 watts against the sanctioned connected load. On the basis of the site inspection they have issued provisional bill along with notice and calculation statement. The calculation is done as per the provisions of the Electricity Act. The main contention raised by the opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. The complainant approached the Forum for challenging the provisional bill issued by them. The complainant can challenge before this Forum only against a final bill issued by the assessing officer. Further, the complainant is not a consumer as the complainant is running a commercial firm. 11. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, two witnesses were examined as DW1 and DW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 marked. Ext.B1 is the current bill dated 5.6.09 issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. Ext.B2 is the current bill dated 7.8.09 issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. 12. The complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1 and DW2. 13. On going through the evidences in this case, it is pertinent to note that Ext.A2 to A4 were issued by the opposite parties on the basis of the inspection conducted by the Division Squad of the opposite parties at the complainant’s premises. As per the site mahazar prepared by the Squad the complainant was using an unauthorised additional load of 3880 watts instead of sanctioned load of 6140 watts and issued the provisional bill with notice and calculation statement. According to the opposite parties as per Sec.126(3) of the Electricity Act 2003, if any person is aggrieved while serving notice under sub sec.(2) shall be entitled to file objection before the assessing officer and person aggrieved by the decision of the assessing officer can prefer appeal before the appellate authority. The complainant can challenge only the final bill issued by the assessing officer after hearing objection to the provisional bill. The complainant has not filed any objection to the provisional bill and notice before the assessing officer as per Sec.126(3). Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. 14. For corroborating the contentions of opposite parties, they have cited the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.355/2004 and 371/2006 (2008 CTJ (CP) NCDRC) (Gujarat Electricity Board and another Vs. Madresa Abriyah Talimul Muslin Min.). In the judgment it was pointed out that, “Against the assessment order passed under Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, a consumer has option either to file appeal under Sec.127 or to approach the Consumer Fora by filing complaint”. The complainant has approached the Forum for challenging the provisional bill issued to her by the opposite parties. There is no evidence from the part of the complainant that she had approached the opposite parties against the provisional bill Ext.A4 and Ext.A4 bill is the final bill issued by the assessing officer after hearing the objection against provisional bill. From the facts and circumstances of the complaint and in the light of the above said ruling we came to a conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 15. Since the 1st point raised is found against the complainant, the other points are not considered. The interim order passed by the Forum in IA.100/09 is stand vacated from today. 16. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of January, 2011. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : C.S. Daniel Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Authorisation dated 29.03.2010 in favour of the complainant. A2 : Copy of site mahazar prepared by 4th opposite party after inspecting the complainant’s premises. A3 : Calculation statement cum notice dated 28.5.09 issued by the 4th opposite party to the complainant. A4 : Provisional bill dated 28.5.09 for ` 28,904 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW1 : O.U. Jayakrishnan DW2 : Venugopal. V.K. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: B1 : Current bill dated 5.6.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. B2 : Current bill dated 7.8.09 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Smt. Susan Daniel, Melody Park, Elakolloor. (2) The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan,Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. (4) Asst. Engineer, -do. –do. (5) Sub Engineer in Charge, KSEB, Electrical Section, Pathanamthitta. (6) The Stock File. | 
