CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 194/2010
Wednesday, the 20th day of June , 2012.
Petitioner : Aabraham V.K
Valamparambil House,
Kollad P.O
Kottayam.
(By Adv. P.C Chacko)
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vydyuthi Bhavn,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Exe. Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Division,
Pallom, Pakkil P.O, Kottayam
2) The Asst. Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section,
Nattakom, Moolavattom P.O.,
Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 13..08..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner is a consumer of opposite party, with vide consumer No. 7447. The power allocation given by the opposite party to the petitioner is 39 KW. On 12..2..2008 opposite party after an inspection conducted at the premises of petitioner, issued a bill to the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 9,720/- petitioner remitted the same. According to the petitioner up to 2008. Opposite party issue penal bill to the petitioner. On 1..1..2009 opposite party issued another bill for Rs. 32,770/-. Later as per the complaint of the petitioner they revised the bill for Rs. 9,395/- . According to petitioner on 27..3..2008, petitioner applied for additional power allocation. Opposite party sanctioned the same only on 11/2008. According to the petitioner the bill Dtd: 31..7..2010 issued by the opposite party is an act of deficiency, hence the petition.
-2-
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is not a consumer. On 6..2..2008 on inspection an additional load 9 KW was detected at the premises of petitioner. Petitioner regularised unauthorised load on 16..12..2008. As per the audit report it was found that petitioner had not remitted proportionate current charge for the said unauthorised consumption period. The power allocation as applied by petitioner was not allotted by the opposite party . The power allocation applied by petitioner has not allotted by the opposite party because the petitioner has not submitted the licence from the local body. According to the opposite party bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper and there is not deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, 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 A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B5 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Petitioner challenges the Ext. A1 for Rs. 17359/-. According to the opposite party Ext. A1 bill is issued as per audit report. Disputed bill is issued for the proportionate current charge during the un authorized consumption period. Admittedly the petitioner regularized un authorized additional load on 16..12..2008. So, only question to be decided is whether petitioner is liable for remitting the proportionate current charge during the un
-3-
authorized consumption period. In our view there is an order of electricity regulatory commission Dtd: 19..1..2010 in the matter of Kerala State Small Industries Association Vs. KSEB with respect to the energy charges. In the said order regulatory commission stated that assessment as per the provision should be after taking the average for the period prior to the detection of the un authorized connected load for the period after the detection of un authorized connected load. Penalty is to be issued for that part of energy with respect to the un authorized connected load. In view of the fact that order of regulatory commission has not been challenged by the opposite party we find that the order of the regulatory commission is applicable to the present matter also. All the same assessment with respect to fixed charge was paid by the petitioner and do not call for interference. The amount as per Ext. A1 ie. amount of Rs. 17,359/- is to be re calculated by applying the method prescribed by the regulatory commission in the said matter. Admittedly the board order for penalizing proportionate current charge is dtd: 7..12..2008. Detection of u authorized load and penalization for UAL is after the said board order. Opposite party is also deficiency in issuing the earlier penal bill without imposing penalty for the proportionate current charge. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed. In the result opposite party is ordered to issue a fresh order with respect to the energy charges alone, recalculating the bill amount by applying the method adopted by the regulatory commission in the mater of Kerala State Small Industries
-4-
Association Vs. KSEB (Order Dtd: 19..01..2010). Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for not penalizing the petitioner for the proportionate current charge even after a board order which is Dtd: 7..2..2008. Compensation amount is to be adjusted in the re-calculated bill. The order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th day of June, 2012.
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 bill Dtd: 31..7..2010
Ext. A2: Copy of complaint CC No. / 2009
Ext. A3: Copy of objection filed in CC 34/09 by KSEB.
Ext. A4: Bill Dtd: 9..7..2010
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of order Dtd: 12..2..2008 issued by the Asst. Engineer,
Moolavattom.
Ext. B2: Copy of the order Dtd: 21..8..2007 issued by the Electricity
regulatory commission
Ext. B3: Copy of order Dtd: 7..2..2008 issued by the Electricity Board.
Ext. B4: Copy of licence
Ext. B5: Copy of Audit report
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
