DATE OF FILING :28.10.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.209/2009

Between

Complainant : K.M. Assis,

Kavumparambil House,

Vannappuram P.O.,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Pattam P.O.,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer (KSEB),

Electrical Section,

Kaliyar P.O.,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant is conducting a provision store at Vannappuram by hiring a room owned by Smt.Elsamma Kuriakkose, Chamakkalayil House, Vannappuram. The complainant is promptly paying electricity bills issued to the said room as consumer No.8695. The average bill for a couple of month is Rs.750/- and the complainant is paying the same properly. On 20.11.2007, the complainant started the renovation work of the shop, on 26.11.2007, a squad of the opposite party has inspected the premises and an additional bill was given to the complainant dated 28.11.2007 for Rs.11,950/- stating that the complainant unauthorisedly increased 2KW of connected load. The complainant submitted that he has increased the connected load within 1 month in order to renovate the shop but the opposite party penalised for 1 year for the same. After that an audit was conducted by the opposite party and a bill was issued for Rs.13,996/- on 7.10.2009. The complainant is not entitled to pay the amount of Rs.13,996/- as per bill dated 7.10.2009. The connected load was increased as 2KW only on 20.11.2007, for the renovation work of the shop. So the opposite party is entitled to charge the penal rate for 1 month only, but the opposite party imposed for a period of 1 year. Again a bill for Rs.11,590/- was issued by the opposite party on 28.11.2007. So this petition was filed for cancelling the extra bill issued by the opposite party and also for compensation.
 

2. The opposite party filed a written version and admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.8695 as LT single phase. The connected load was less than 1000 watts and registered in the name of Smt.Elsamma Kuriakose, Chamakkalayil (H), Vannappuram. While so a total connected load of 2479 watts was detected in the above premises during the inspection conducted by the section squad on 26.11.2007. Site Mahasar was prepared for misuse of energy, a penal bill of Rs.11,590/- vide invoice dated 28.11.2007 was issued to the consumer as per prevailing rules and the tariff changed to LT VII A. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Deputy Chief Engineer Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha. A hearing with the petitioner was held on 12.3.2008. Since the petitioner could not produce any evidence from his side to prove his arguments, the appeal was dismissed and accordingly, the amount was remitted. Since the UAL was neither removed nor regularized, the bimonthly bill from 12/2007 to 12/2008 was issued along with the penal charges for the period (fixed charge only). During the later audit it was noted that the current charges portion of unauthorized additional load was seen omitted in the bill issued during the period 12/2007 – 12/2008. Accordingly a short assessment bill amounting to Rs.13,996/- was issued to the consumer vide invoice No.94420201 dated 7.10.2009. The above invoice was issued as per rules. As per rules Sub Section (6) of section 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act 2007, the assessment under this section shall be made at a rate equal to twice the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service. As per sub section (5) of the section 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place the assessment shall be made of the entire period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place and if, however, period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. So both invoices are as per rules and same is left to remit. So there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
 

5. The POINT :- The opposite party issued two demand notice/ bills to the complainant as per the inspection conducted by squad of the opposite party on 26.11.2007. The complainant was examined as PW1. Both the bills were issued for one and the same period, PW1 deposed that he was conducting provision store, in order to start a fancy shop in the very next room he started furnishing works in November, 2007. On 26.1.2007, a squad of the opposite party inspected the room and it was found that 2KW of connected load has unauthorisedly increased by the complainant. So a Mahasar was also prepared by them and a bill was issued for Rs.11,590/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of the same. Ext.P2 is the objection given to the opposite party by the complainant against the bill. On 7.10.2009 another bill was issued from the opposite party which is marked as Ext.P3 for arrears of account, charged as energy charge from 12/2007 to 12/2008. Ext.P4 is the Mahasar issued and prepared by the opposite party as per the inspection of 26.11.2007. Ext.P1 bill was paid by PW1 as per the request of the opposite party at the time of inspection. Unauthorised connection was not done by PW1, but the items mentioned in Ext.P4 Maharani wereproduced by the complainant and were kept in the room. No application was given to the opposite party for changing the thariff. Because the owner of the building told that they are going to reconstruct the building soon. Ext.P5 series is the bill for the purchase of the electrical equipments as per Ext.P4 Mahasar. The new shop was inaugurated only on 24.11.2007 and the notice for the inauguration is marked as Ext.P6. The bill on 5.9.2009 for Rs.1695/- which is marked as Ext.P7. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Copy of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, on the appeal petition filed by PW1 is marked as Ext.R2. Ext.R3 is the copy of the minutes of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha on 2.3.2008 about the hearing conducted by the opposite party as per the complaint of PW1. DW1 deposed that at the time of inspection renovation work was not conducted by the complainant. The bill for the purchase of the electrical equipments were showed to the opposite party. When an appeal was filed by PW1 to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, the complainant was called for hearing, but PW1 was not able to produce evidence in connection with his arguments and the petition was dismissed. Even though the bill was issued on 26.11.2007. He was using unauthorised connection for the last 1 year. After that the bills were issued including penal charge, an additional bill of Rs.13,996/- was also issued on 7.10.2007, for the same period.

It is admitted by PW1 that a number of electrical equipments were purchased by the complainant at the time of inspection of the opposite party and the bill for the same were also produced to the opposite party at the time of inspection, but the purchased electrical equipments were not connected. They were purchased only in 2007, when the renovation work of the shop was started. But the opposite party calculated this as connected load and the Mahasar was prepared for the same which is Ext.P4. So we think that at the time of inspection, the electrical instruments such as air conditioner, inverter, bulb, ceiling fan, CFL lamp, computer, UPS, T.V. etc. were purchased by the complainant and were kept in the shop. Even though they are not connected, they were purchased for connecting. As per the complainant, he has purchased them within 1 month of inspection, but the opposite party charged for 1 year and thus the appeal has filed to the deputy Chief Engineer. But the complainant was not able to produce evidence for his arguments. So the amount of Ext.P1 bill was paid by the complainant. So we think that there is no dispute in the bill issued by the opposite party as Ext.P1. But Ext.P3 bill is also issued by the opposite party for the same period. As per the opposite party, Ext.P3 bill is issued only because of current charges portion of unauthorised additional load was seen omitted in the bill issued during the period 12/2007-12/2008. So a short assessment bill amounting to Rs.13,996/- was issued on 7.10.2009 as per the audit conducted by the opposite party. But there is no audit report produced by the opposite party to show that such an omission on current charges was done by the opposite party while accounting. The complainant was not given chance to hear the proceedings of the opposite party before issuing Ext.P3 bill. So we think that it is a deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The opposite party never produced an audit report before the Forum showing the omission of the account charged. DW1 also admitted that Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 were issued for one and the same period. So we think that there is no explanation for the Ext.P3 bill, so it is liable to be cancelled. The opposite party can issue proper bill to the complainant after giving true accounts of the audit report and after hearing the complainant.

Hence the petition is partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.P3 bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.13,996/-. The opposite party can issue fresh invoice, if it is necessary, after giving copy of the omitted accounts of the electrical charges as per audit report to the complainant and the opposite party should give a chance for hearing.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of March, 2010.

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Assis K.M.

On the side of the Opposite party :

DW1 - George V.O.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of the bill issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board, dated 28.11.2007, for Rs. 11,590/-.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the letter from the complainant to the opposite party dated 29.11.2007.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the electricity bill dated 7.10.2009, for Rs.13,996/-

Ext.P4 - Maharani issued and prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannappuram, dated 26.11.2007.

Ext.P5 - Cash bill of Freeze Queen Engineers, Vannappuram, dated 15.11.2007, for the purchase of electrical goods.

Ext.P5(a) - Cash bill of Thayyil Light House, Vannappuram, dated 16.11.2007, for the purchase of electrical goods.

Ext.P5(b) - Invoice dated 16.11.2007, of Insight Systems, Thodupuzha, for the purchase of electrical goods.

Ext.P6 - Notice of inauguration of the new shop of the complainant, namely, Duty Paid & Fashion Park, Vannappuram, announcing the inauguration date as 24.12.2007.

Ext.P7 - Copy of the electricity bill dated 13.8.2009, for Rs.1,659/-.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - Copy of the minutes of the hearing conducted at the chamber of Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, on 2.3.2008.

Ext.R2 - Copy of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, dated 5.5.2008.

Ext.R3 - Copy of the minutes of the hearing conducted at the chamber of Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, on 2.3.2008.

Ext.R4 - Copy of the page No.356 of Electricity Act, 2003, which shows the Sn.126 of the Act

Ext.R5 - Copy of the KSEB circular No.RAO.M.Cell/1/72/Note/Act/2007 dated 5.9.2007 about the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2007.

Ext.R6 - Copy of the Order from Kerala State Electricity Board, No.B.O.(FM)No.368/2008 (DPC1/C-Gl/182/2007), dated 7.2.2008.