BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 29/09/2011
Date of Order : 31/07/2012
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 519/2011
Between
Lijo Varghese, | :: | Complainant |
M/s. IRC Computer Centre, Irimpayil Complex, Muvattupuzha – 686 661. |
| (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha – 686 661) |
And
1. Secretary, | :: | Opposite Parties |
K.S.E.B., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-690 004. 2. The Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B. Major Section – 1, Muvattupuzha 686 601. |
| (Op.pts. by Adv. P.B. Asokan, M/s. P.B. Asokan & George C. Varghese Advocates, XL/4664, Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 031) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-
The complainant is conducting a computer coaching centre for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. He hired a room for the said purpose. The electricity connection was provided under the LT VII A tariff. While so, the complainant was served with a penal bill for Rs. 41,462/- dated 14-09-2011 alleging unauthorized connected load to the tune of 6 KW. The penal bill is inclusive of Rs. 14,400/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs. 27,062/- towards the penal current charges. The complainant is not liable to pay the above said penal current charge. The total connected load of the complainant's premises is only 4 KW as against 7 KW assessed by the opposite party. The UPS having connected load of 2.5 KW was installed only on 03-06-2011. Thereafter, the load was regularized. The load was regularized in June 2011 by collecting penal charges. The complainant paid Rs. 4,618/- in July 2011 and Rs. 4,073/- in August 2011. Altogether, he paid Rs. 8,691/- towards penal charges for unauthorized extension of connected load. Though these aspects were brought to the notice of the 2nd opposite party, nothing was done by them to withdraw the demand. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to note that the complainant had paid the charges for the electricity consumed by him on the basis of the meter reading. Hence even if any unauthorized load extension was done, he is only liable to pay penal current charges. The act of the opposite parties to demand penal current charges amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is not liable to pay the penal bill amount Rs. 41,462/-, since he had already paid Rs. 8,691/- towards the penal charges. Thus, the complainant is before us to get the impugned bill set aside.
2. The version filed by the opposite parties is as follows :
The disputed bill was issued as per the direction of the office of the Principal Accountant General, Indian Audit and Accounts Department. On inspection on 03-06-2011, a total load of 5580 watts was noticed. The back assessment was from 6/2010 to 4/2011. The calculation details are as follows :
UAL 6 KW
Penalty period from, 6/2010 to 4/2011.
Penal charge = 6 x Rs. 100 x 2 x 12 months = Rs. 14,400/-
Units from 6/2010 to 4/20-11 was 4325 units.
CC upto 500 units/month slab = 4325 x 7.30 = 31,573/-.
Penal current charge = Rs. 31,573 x 6/7 = 27,062/-
Total penal fixed charge = penal current charge
= Rs. 14,400 = Rs. 27,062 = Rs. 41,462/-
The consumer regularized the connected load on 24-08-2011, thereby increasing the connected load to 4220 watts after the inspection. Penal bills from 4/2011 to 8/2011 amounting to Rs. 11,091/- were also given along with the normal bimonthly bills of 6/2011 and 8/2011 respectively and the consumer remitted this also before regularizing it to 4220 watts. But the back assessed amount of Rs. 41,462/- for the period from 6/2010 to 4/2011 issued as per Accountant General's Report still remains unpaid. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as claimed.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that comes up for consideration is whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill or not?
5. Admittedly, the complainant had regularized the connected load on 24-08-2011. The complainant had also remitted the penal bills as well on the regular bills, while the connected load was regularised. Exts. A2 and A3 go to show that UPS with connected load of 2.5 KW was installed only on 03-06-2011, the date of inspection by the Authorities. Since the UPS was installed on 03-06-2011, the back assessment is not warranted retrospectively as per Section 126 (5) of the Electricity Act 2003. So, we have no hesitaiton to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A3 the impugned bill. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2012
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
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 :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Copy of the penal bill for the period from 6/2010 to 4/2011 |
“ A2 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 03-06-2011 |
“ A3 | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 03-06-2011 |
“ A4 series | :: | Copy of the bill dt. 20-08-2011 and copy of the receipt dt. 24-08-2011 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
