DATE OF FILING : 6.6.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 26th day of August, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.103/2011
Between
Complainant : George P.J., S/o Joseph,
Pathipallil House,
Ambalakkavala,
Kattappana P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Benny Joseph)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section, Kattappana,
Kattappana P.O.,
Idukki District.
3. The Deputy Chief Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, Thodupuzha P.O.,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.4864/KTPN for his residential electrical connection. The complainant started renovation and extension works of his residential building and for that he purchased some wood and granite slabs from Kattappana on 10.10.2010 and 13.10.2010 respectively. While the works were going on, the squad of the opposite party inspected the building on 18.10.2010 and found that some equipments are using by the workers by taking electricity from the residential house of the complainant. The opposite party prepared a mahazar and directed the complainant on 19.10.2010, to pay Rs.58,500/- within 7 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed
(cont.......2)
- 2 -
appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle Thodupuzha. But the same was confirmed by the Deputy Chief Engineer without considering the documents and evidence produced by the complainant. So the complainant was constrained to remit Rs.30,420/- being 50% of the penal invoice amount and application fee equal to 2% of the assessed amount. The assessment was for a period of 45 days. But the complainant used electricity only for 8 days for the construction works from 11.10.2010 to 18.10.2010 for which he paid electricity bill vide receipt No.380972 dated 18.12.2010. The electricity bill dated 7.10.2010 for the period from 5.8.2010 to 7.10.2010 was for Rs.209/- for the consumption of 134 units and the electricity bill dated 9.12.2010 for the period from 7.10.2010 to 9.12.2010 was for Rs.393/- for the consumption of 203 units. The complainant had remitted the said bills towards the entire electricity charges including the additional consumption. The opposite parties are not entitled to realise the penal bill from the complainant and it is illegal. So this petition is filed for cancelling the order issued by the 3rd opposite party and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, the Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB along with the Sub Engineer of Electrical Section, Kattappana inspected the premises on 18.10.2010 and found that the flooring work, carpentry work and roofing work of the residential building were in progress in the premises. The unauthorised electrical equipments detected in the premises are as detailed below:
Welding set 200 A 1 No.
Portable cutter 2200 W 1 No.
Wood cutter 1200 W 1 No.
Tile cutter 1200 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 670 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 550 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 500 W 1 No.
Drilling machine 500 W 2 Nos.
Compressor 750 W 1 No.
Total = 12870 W (12.87 Kilowatts)
As per the Board Order No.BO(FM) NO.368/2008 (DPC1/C-GI/182/2007) dated 7.2.2008, the unauthorised extension is to assessed with two time fixed charge. Based on this, the consumer was given an assessment bill as detailed: (Rs.50 x 13 Kilowatts x 45 days) 2 times = Rs.58,500/-. For temporary extension, the consumer has to take advance permission from KSEB and has to remit Rs.50/- as fixed charge per Kilowatt per day.
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
In this case, the complainant has not placed any application before the KSEB or paid any amount as fixed charge. So the bill was issued as per section 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and the final order was as per the appeal filed by the complainant and the proceedings No.DB14/Arr/10-11/573 dated 13.3.2011 are legal. Hence the petition is not at all maintainable.
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 oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P11 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant who deposed as PW1, he is permanently residing in the house in which it is having electrical connection as consumer No.4864/KTPN and he is remitting the electricity bill regularly to the opposite parties. Renovation of the residence was started on 11.10.2010 only and it was finished on 18.10.2010, so it continued only about 8 days. The complainant was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party in the period mentioned. Ext.P5 is the bill issued by the opposite party dated 7.10.2010 for an amount of Rs.229/-. Another bill dated 9.12.2010 for an amount of Rs.393/- is marked as Ext.P7. Both were paid by the complainant and the copy of receipts are marked as Exts. P6 and P8. But the opposite party while inspecting the complainant's residence on 18.10.2010, found that certain construction work were going on there and a bill for Rs.58,500/- was given, which calculated as (Rs.50 x 13Kilowatts x 45 days) x 2 times. The connected load of the complainant was assessed as 1940 watts. Ext.P2 is the copy of the proceedings of the assessing officer for the same. A petition was filed by the complainant to the Assistant Engineer and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P3. The complainant filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, but without considering the evidence of the complainant, the appeal was confirmed and an order was passed on 17.3.2011 by the Deputy Chief Engineer and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P4. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,420/-, which is 50% of the amount for filing appeal against the order of the assessing officer and Ext.P1 is copy of the receipt for the same. As per the complainant, he purchased granite and tiles only on 13.10.2010 and Ext.P9 is the copy of the bill for the same. Carpentry work was started on 10.10.2010, because the wood for the same was purchased only on 10.10.2010. Ext.P10 is the copy of the bill for the purchase of the same. After the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, the opposite party issued notice demanding Rs.29,250/-. It is also threatened that the electrical supply would be disconnected if it is not paid and copy of the same is
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
marked as Ext.P11. On cross examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for the opposite party, the mahazar prepared by the opposite party produced and marked as Ext.R1, in which it is stated that
Welding set 200 A 1 No.
Portable cutter 2200 W 1 No.
Wood cutter 1200 W 1 No.
Tile cutter 1200 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 670 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 550 W 1 No.
Grinder portable 500 W 1 No.
Drilling machine 500 W 2 Nos.
Compressor 750 W 1 No.
And a total connected load of 12870 W. The mahazar was prepared in the premises itself and the wife of the complainant also signed in the mahazar.
It is admitted by PW1 that the renovation work of the building was going on and the flooring work and carpentry work were done at the time of the inspection, certain electrical equipments were also used for the same. But as per the complainant, the work was done only for 8 days after the purchase of the wood and granite as per the Exts. P9 and P10. The complainant was promptly paying the bills issued for that period, as per the meter reading and that was duly paid by the complainant as per Exts. P6 and P8. But the opposite party penalised for 45 days and a bill for Rs.58,500/- has been given. While the complainant filed appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, they never considered the evidence produced by the complainant. But as per the opposite party, these machineries were present at the residence of the complainant and it was informed as per the Ext.R1 mahazar to the wife of the complainant and she has duly signed in the mahazar. So for the temporary extension, the consumer has to take advance permission from the KSEB and has to remit Rs.50/- as fixed charge per Kilowatt per day. The complainant has not placed any application before the KSEB or not paid any fixed charge. As per the Board Order No.BO(FM) NO.368/2008 (DPC1/C-GI/182/2007) dated 7.2.2008, unauthorised extension is to assessed with two time fixed charge. So a bill was issued to the complainant as per the order No.BB6/INSPN/10-11 dated 19.10.2010 and a final order was passed for the bill as per the GBI/Appeal/2010-11/281 dated 17.3.2011.
As per the complainant, he used electricity for renovation of his house only for 8 days and at that time he was promptly paying the electricity bills as per the meter reading. But as per KSEB, an advance permission should be taken from the Board and should remit Rs.50/- as fixed charge per Kilowatt per day. Here the complainant was using the electricity for the renovation work of the house from his residential connection itself and no other unauthorised illegal extension has been done. If these
(cont.....5)
- 5 -
machineries were using by the complainant, the meter reading of the complainant's electrical energy would also have showed the same. The bill issued for that period must also will a hike bill, if the complainant was using these machineries for a long period. Here the bill for that period was only an amount of Rs.229/- and for the next month it was only for Rs.393/-. It means that the complainant was using electricity for these machineries only for short period. The meter reading for that period for the electrical consumption was also mentioned in the bill issued by the opposite party. So we think that the complainant was not using these machineries for his construction work regularly, but the opposite party assessed stating that these machineries were using for 45 days. So we cannot believe the version of the opposite party that the complainant was using 13 KW of electricity for 45 days. If it was done, the bill issued by the opposite party for that period also have been increased consequently. But while inspection, the opposite party ought to have enquired about the period for which the complainant used these machineries for the construction work. While inspection, the opposite parties never enquired these matters to any of the neighbours of the complainant. No independent witness signed in the mahazar other than the wife of the complainant. In the mahazar, it is stated that photographs of the same has been taken by the opposite party, but they were not produced by the opposite party before this Forum. So we think that the opposite party ought to have investigated the matter that whether the complainant was using the electrical connection for 45 days unauthorisedly for the construction work. A prior permission of the opposite party was not availed by the complainant for his construction work and Rs.50/-, fixed charge was not paid by the complainant for KW/day for the consumption. That was the offence alleged by the opposite party. So the opposite party can charge after finding exact period of consumption of the electricity for his construction work and issue bill for the same. As per the complainant, 3rd opposite party never considered the evidence, documents and statements of the complainant while considering the appeal, only confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. So we think that it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. So the opposite party should cancel the Ext.P11 notice issued dated 31.3.2011, demanding an amount of Rs.29,250/- and the opposite party should enquire about the exact period for the consumption of electricity for the construction work of the complainant's residential building through independent persons including neighbouring persons and an opportunity should be given to the complainant for producing evidence on behalf of the same. If the complainant paid any amount to the opposite party, as additional to the corrected bill, that can be deducted in the future bill of the complainant after enquiry.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel Ext.P11 demand notice issued, dated 31.3.2011. The opposite party can issue corrected bill for using electricity for the renovation work of his residential building after
(cont......6)
- 6 -
conducting a true enquiry about the exact period of consumption and also give an opportunity to the complainant to produce evidence before the 3rd opposite party about the same.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of August, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - P.J. George.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 15.11.2010.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the proceedings of the assessing officer of the opposite party.
Ext.P3 - Copy of the petition filed by the complainant to the Assistant
Engineer dated 23.10.2010.
Ext.P4 - Copy of the proceedings of the 3rd opposite party dated 17.3.2011.
Ext.P5 - Copy of the bill issued by the opposite party dated 7.10.2010.
Ext.P6 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 19.10.210.
Ext.P7 - Copy of the bill issued by the opposite party dated 9.12.2010.
Ext.P8 - Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 9.10.2010.
Ext.P9 - Copy of the bill for the purchase of granite, dated 13.10.2010.
Ext.P10 - Copy of the bill for the purchase of wood, dated 10.10.2010.
Ext.P11 - Copy of the notice issued by the opposite party dated 31.3.2011.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the mahazar prepared by the opposite party dated
18.10.2010.
