PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 29th day of October 2011
Filed on : 21/05/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 264/2011
Between
Joby Jose, : Complainant
Proprietor, (Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,
Olickamackel Bakers, Muvattupuzha)
Koothattukulam.
.
And
1. The Secretary, : Opposite parties
KSEB, Vydyuthy Bhavan,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. (parties-in-person)
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Section,
Koothattukualm-686 662.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is conducting a bakery for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. He had rented the shop room from Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath. The electricity connection for the room is provided in the name of the building owner under the LT VII A tariff bearing Consumer No. 8254. While so, a penal bill dated 09-05-2011 for Rs. 29,776/- was issued to the complainant alleging unauthorized connected load to the tune of 3 kw. The penal bill is inclusive of Rs. 3,600/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs. 26,176/- towards the penal current charges. The complainant is not liable to pay the above said penal current charge since the entire electricity consumed by the complainant has been recorded on the energy meter and the complainant had paid the energy charges promptly. The allegation of unauthorized load of 3 kw is not correct. The invertor was also included as unauthorized load of 1 kw. Hence the demand for Rs. 26,176/- is illegal and without any basis. The complainant is only liable to pay the penal fixed charge of Rs. 3,600/-. The demand for Rs. 26,176/- is illegal and without any basis. Thus the complainant is before us with a prayer to set aside the disputed bills.
2. Version filed by the opposite party.
The Electricity connection for the complainant’s rented room in the shopping complex owned by the Koothattukulam Grama Panchayath under LT VII A tariff with a connected load of 150W under the consumer No.8254 of Electrical Section, Koothattukulam. On 25th April 2011, Sub Engineer-in-charge of the Electrical Section conducted an inspection at the consumer’s premises and assessed the total connected load as 3897 W against the approved connected load of 150 W. A site mahasar, describing the connected load details at that time, prepared at the time of inspection by the sub engineer in charge duly witnessed by the shop owner. Consequently, a provisional penal bill dated 09-05-2011 amounting to Rs. 29,776/- was served to the consumer for the excess usage of 3KW. The complainant is legally liable to pay the amount as per the bill.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Ext. A1 and B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite party respectively. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2nd opposite party who appeared in person.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the impugned bill set aside.
5. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant vide order in I.A. No. 275/2011 dated 23-05-2011 this Forum directed the 2nd opposite party to refrain from disconnecting the electricity supply to the complainant.
6. Admittedly on 25-04-2011 the officials of the 1st opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared Ext. B1 mahasar. As per the mahasar unauthorized connected load of 3 KW was detected. Based on the Mahazar the 2nd opposite party issued the impugned bill to the complainant which was not disputed. Nothing is on record to controvert the findings in Ext. B1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Similar case has categorically held as follows:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punchab Electricity Board Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Ashwani Kumar iv (2010) CPJ (SC)1 has held that
“the inspection report is a document prepared in exercise of its official duties by the officers of the Corporation. Once an act is done in accordance with law, the presumption is in favour of such act or document and not against the same. Thus, there was specific onus upon the consumer to rebut by leading proper and cogent evidence that the report prepared by the officers was not correct. As already noticed, no objections were filed to the said report except some protest, that too, without stating as to what was the specific pretest about, whether the facts recorded in the report were factually incorrect or that the report was received under protest. As is apparent from the reports on record, it bears to signatures of the consumer/consumer’s representatives, one with regard to the preparation of report and other with regard to receiving the copy of the report. The words ‘under protest’ have been recorded at the bottom of the report. This, itself indicates the ambiquity in the protest raised by the consumers ”.
Moreover the Hon’ble High Court in Maria Palan Society Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and 3 others held that a consumr is liable to pay the penal charges and fixed charges fixed by the KSE Board which includes the issue in question squarely. Neither decision is disputed or challenged.
The Hon’ble High Court held as follows:
“In my view, the contention raised by the petitioner is only to be rejected. As can be seen from Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as amended, once the Assessing Officer reaches the conclusion that unauthorized use of energy has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period an the assessment shall be at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of services. A reading of Section 45(3) (a) shows that charges for electricity certified by a distribution licensee include fixed charges in addition to the charges for the actual electricity supplied ad consumed. In the light of the above statutory provisions, the irresistible conclusion is that tariff includes both fixed charges and energy charges and that once the Assessing officer has reached the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, he is bound to make assessment at the rate equal to twice the tariff applicable, which, includes the dues payable towards energy charges also. If that be so, the levy of penalty, as done in this case is unassailable and the petitioner cannot seek the relief sought for.”
7 Conclusively we are of the view that the complainant is legally liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1 bill consequently by order in I.A. No. 275/2011 dated 23-05-2011 is vacated.
8. In view of the above the proceedings in this complaint stands closed with a direction to the complainant to take immediate steps to regularize the additional connected load, as fixed by the opposite party.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2011
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 bill dt.09/05/2011
Opposite party’s exhibits:
Ext. B1 : site mahasar
B2 : copy of bill dt. 21-03-2011
