SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Harilal has filed this complaint on 7.4.2005. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He has an electric connection vide consumer No.1242 MPKY and it is in the name of his deceased father and it is a domestic connection. R.191/- was the charge for the consumption power; and he is remitting the amount regularly. He is conducting a small shop which lies about 20m. away from his house. In order to get the power connection for the said shop room, he had remitted the required amount before the 4th opposite party in 2004 vide Receipt No.6075. During February, 2005, in connection with the festival of the temple, near his house he lighted a tube light for a temporary period of one month. 4th opposite party served an invoice No. 9710 dt. 31.3.2005 to him, directing to remit Rs.22,500/- since the connection was an unauthorized additional connection for 5 months. He had not consumed power amounting to Rs.22,500/-. The meter was defective and the 4th opposite party replaced the same on 30.4.2005. There is no unauthorized consumption, and that the additional load for 5 months as stated in the invoice dt. 30.3.2005 was wrong. Being highly aggrieved by the acts of the opposite parties, he has filed the complaint. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed version, by the 3rd opposite party for himself and for other opposite parties. 3. In the version, they have stated that the connection is in the name of the father of the complainant; under domestic category. The meter reading being taken, bimonthly and the meter shows that 107 units in 12/04, 113 units in 2/05 and 162 units in 4/05 and the charges was Rs.174/-, Rs.187/- and Rs.164/- respectively. It is further stated that the vigilance wing of KSEB conducted an inspection at the premises of the complainant and detected that 22M of PVC wire have been drawn to the nearby Gurukulam stores situated in the South East side of the house of the complainant and extracting energy for the use of the said shop; and that the action of the complainant was against clause 24 of the Energy Regulation. It is further stated that the total unauthorized load at the shop is 3 kw; and as per norms the assessed amount comes to Rs.22,500/- (3 kw x Rs.50 x 150days = Rs.22,500/-). Complainant has used the energy to the shop by unauthorized drawing of electric wire and it was against the relevant rules. Complainant applied for electric connection to the shop, vide Consumer No.6075 MPKY and it shows that he is fully aware of the fact that a separate electric connection is necessary for his shop. The bill amount of Rs.22,000/- was the penal bill for the temporary extension for 150 days; in respect of an unauthorized load of 3 kw. in the shop. 4. Considering the contentions of the parties, the Forum raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Compensation and costs. 5. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced documents in evidence and he has been examined and cross examined. Document – Ext.A1 marked – it is the bill No.97010 dt. 31.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.22,500/- issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant. It shows that the use of energy and amount charged. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and produced one document and examined the 4th opposite party. Document – Ext.B1 marked – it is the original report of the Vigilance Wing conducted on 28.3.2005 in connection with the unauthorized extension of wire for using the electric supply. This report was also signed by the complainant. 6. We have examined by the matter in detail and produced the documents given by both parties. The disputed bill for Rs.22,500/- was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant charging the rates as per the Electric Regulations. The amount was for the penal rates for the authorized use of electric connection by the complainant. The Vigilance Wing of the Board had conducted an inspection on 28.3.2005 and they prepared a report. That report was also signed by the complainant and he has full knowledge of the said Vigilance enquiry and preparation of report. The amount was charged accordingly as per norms and prevailing rules. So it cannot be say that the issuance of the bill to the complainant is arbitrary and illegal. The opposite parties can proceed against the complainant, since he is using electric current in an authorized manner and it was without obtaining prior sanction from the Board. So the issuance of the disputed bill for a sum of Rs.22,500/- is binding with the complainant and complainant is bound to remit the same. In case of any default of the remittance of the said amount by the complainant, the opposite parties are free to proceed against the complainant. So considering the whole facts circumstances of this case, we are of the view that since the dispute is in connection with the unauthorized use of electricity by the complainant, the complaint is to be dismissed. All the issues are found against the complainant. Hence the complaint dismissed since it has no merit. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2010. Sd/- Sri.K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Sri.Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Harilal (Witness) Ext.A1 - Bill No.97010 dt. 31.3.2005 for Rs.22,500/- Evidence of the opposite parties:- Ext.B1 - Vigilance Report // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. Parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
