BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 02/07/2011
Date of Order : 30/04/2012
Present :-
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 348/2011
Between
Brijith Mathew, | :: | Complainant |
Delux Hotel, Vazhakkulam. P.O., Muvattupuzha – 686 670. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite Parties |
K.S.E.B. Vydyuthy Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Electrical Section, Kalloorkadu. P.O. - 686 668. |
| (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 complaint in brief is as under :
The complainant is running a hotel in a rented room for earning her livelihood for which electricity connection is availed from the opposite parties under LT VII A tariff. After inspection, a penal bill to the tune of Rs. 37,907/- has been issued for having connected 2KW of load unauthorisedly. The complainant denied her liability to pay the sum. Hence this complaint.
2. Both the opposite parties have jointly field version justifying the levy. The initial bill for Rs. 37,907/- has been reduced to Rs. 22,264/- on consideration of her application to exclude load of invertor. The penal current charge is levied on the basis of the Electricity Amendment Act, 2007 and B.O. No. 368/2008 (DPCI/C-GI/182/2007) dated 07-02-2008. The complainant has not exhausted the departmental remedies. It is urged to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. No evidence to the complainant. Ext. B1 has been filed by the opposite parties. No other evidence to them either. Heard the respective counsel.
4. The short points for consideration are :-
Whether the opposite parties are justified in charging for additional load?
Any other reliefs?
5. Point Nos. i. & ii. :- The complainant is aggrieved because she is charged for having connected unauthorisedly load of 2KW in her premises. She has no objection with regard to fixed charges. She is disputing the bill for the amount of Rs. 19,864/- on account of current charges on the ground that the same has been remitted as per meter reading. On the other hand, the opposite parties contend that levy is based on Electricity Amendment Act 2007 and B.O. No. 368/2008 (DCPCI/C-GI/182/2007) dated 07-02-2008.
6. Sadly, both sides have not equipped us with necessary materials to dispose of the matter in a just manner. Apart from arguing that the current consumed has been once charged, no other legal materials to advance her case have been furnished by the complainant.
7. We do not find any merit in the contention of the complainant that the power has been charged earlier, when the meter had recorded the consumption rightly. In view of the fact that the amount shown on account of the current charges in the bill being a penal action on the side of the opposite parties for having consumed electricity in excess of the authority, we think the contention need not be sustained. In that view of the matter, the complaint deserves dismissal.
8. Accordingly, the complaint stands dismissed.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of April 2012
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 :: Nil
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 | :: | Copy of the inspection report issued by the op.pty |
=========
