THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present: Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC. No.229/2008 Monday, the 29th day of March, 2010. Petitioner : Kottayam Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. No. 421, Head Office, Thirunakkara, Kottayam. Reptd. By its General Manager, K. Muraleedharan Nair. (By Adv. Sabu K.) Opposite parties : 1) The Asst. Exe. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB, Kottayam. 2) The Secretary, KSEB, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum. O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner is as follows: Case of the petitioner’s is as follows: Petitioner is the General Manager of the Kottayam Co-Op. Urban Bank Ltd. No. 421, having its head office at Thirunakkara, Kottayam. The Electric connection to the petitioner’s bank is taken from the opposite party Electricity Board with vide consumer No. C-2912. Petitioner bank is remitting electric charge to the opposite party without any fail. According to the petitioner average monthly bill of the petitioner is around Rs. 25,000/-. On 5..8..2008 officers of the Pallom Electrical Division squad inspected petitioner Bank and prepared a mahazar. Opposite party issued a bill Dtd: 6..8..2008 for an amount of Rs. 1,85,765/- as penal assessment for the unauthorized use of energy by -2- using additional load. Petitioner on 7..8..2008 submitted a representation to the first opposite party requesting for reduction of bill amount on the ground that petitioner had not consumed much electrical energy. On 22..8..2008 opposite party issued another bill, canceling the bill Dtd: 6..8..2008’ for an amount of Rs. 1,73,431/-. According to the petitioner the bill was issued without any basis and is a clear deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 22..8..2008 and also he prays for a direction restraining the opposite party from disconnecting the electrical supply to the petitioners premises. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. On 5..8..2008 officers of the opposite party conducted an inspection. During the inspection it is noticed that petitioner is using unauthorized additional load 19 KW against the sanctioned load of 2KW. A detailed site mahazar was prepared in the presence of the employee of the petitioner. Based on the irregularities noticed a penal bill amounting Rs. 1,85,765/- was issued to the petitioner. On 7..8..2008 the petitioner made a representation to the opposite party in the said representation petitioner stated that computerization was started in the bank only 6 months before the inspection and hence the penal bill is to be revised. After having gone through the purchase bill produced by the petitioner Asst. Engineer convinced the fact that 3 KVA Ups mentioned in the site mahazar was purchased on 3..6..2008 and accordingly proportionate reduction in bill amount was sanctioned and a revised bill amounting to Rs. 1,73,431/- was issued. Opposite party contented that the bill is issued -3- legally and there is no deficiency in service and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that the bill issued to the petitioner on 6..8..2008 is not legal and is liable to be cancelled. Petitioner produced the disputed bill Dtd. 6..8..2008 and said document is marked as Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 it is stated that bill is issued as penal assessment for the unauthorized use of energy by using additional load. Petitioner produced the site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the opposite party said document is marked as Ext. A1. Petitioner has no dispute with regard to the preparation of the site mahazar or with regard to the content of Ext. A2 site mahazar. From Ext. A2 it can be seen that there was additional connected load other than the sanctioned connected load. Opposite party produced the copy of the meter reading register said document is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the bimonthly consumption of the petitioner for several months prior to the inspection is not in proportionate to the sanctioned load. So, inference that can be drawn is that petitioner is consuming electrical energy unauthorizedly than the sanctioned connected load. So, -4- in our view opposite party is correct in issuing Ext. A2 penal bill. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1 petition is dismissed. Petitioner deposited half of the assessed amount as per the direction of the Forum. By taking a lenient view we allow petitioner to deposit the balance amount in 5 equal monthly installments along with future bills. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of the Mahazar Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 6..8..2008 Ext. A3: Copy of the letter request Dtd: 7..8..2008 Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 22..8..2008 for an amount of Rs. 1,73,431/- Ext. A5: Copy of appointment order Dtd: 14..9..2009. Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Photo copy of the meter reading register. Ext. B2: Site Mahazar Ext. B3: Notice Dtd: 6..8..2008 Ext. B4: Board order Dtd: 7..2..2008 Ext.B5: Copy of representation Dtd: 7..8..2008 Ext. B6: Copy of revised bill for Rs. 1,73,431/- By Order, Senior Superintendent amp/5cs.
| | , | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | , | | 
