BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29th day of May, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.27/2009

Between

Complainant : Jijo Joseph S/o Joseph, Kochuparambil House,

Branch Manager,

Ezaf, Nedumkandam Branch,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.J.Thomas)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Division,

Kattappana, Idukki District.

3. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,

Nedumkandam, Idukki District.

4. The Sub Engineer-in-charge,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,

Nedumkandam, Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is a consumer of KSEB as Consumer No.6727 for commercial purpose. He is the Manager of ESSAF which is a private finance, which has its Head Office at Thrissur. In the finance company, there is only 3 CFL bulbs of 20 Watts, 3 ceiling fans and one computer as electric equipments. The energy meter fixed by the opposite party is working regularly and the opposite party is regularly serving current bills. The complainant is promptly paying the bills. On 28.01.2009, the 3rd opposite party inspected the complainant's premises and told that the load connected to the complainant's office is very high, so a penal bill of Rs.17,600/- was given to the complainant. A disconnection notice was also given to the complainant on 29.01.2009. A mahazar was prepared by the opposite party but the things written in the mahazar are not correct and are excess. A written complaint was given to the 2nd opposite party about the penal bill, but nothing was done from their part. The complainant is not entitled to pay the penal bill issued by the opposite parties. So the petition is filed for cancelling the same.

2. The opposite party filed a written version stating that the electric connection to consumer No.6727 is given on 10.06.2006 under LT VII B tariff. LT VIIB tariff is for small shops and bunks which have a connected load below 1000 Watt. The complainant agreed that he has been operating the branch office of ESSAF in this premises from September 2006. The complainant is running a private bank in the name and style "ESSAF Micro Finance & Investment Private Limited" in this building. Financial institutions are charged under LT VI C tariff. Presently there is a connected load of 1320 Watt of which 1KVAR UPS(1000 W) was connected to the UPS system. Upon inspection it was found out that there is misuse of energy and hence a penal bill was issued. A mahazar was also prepared by the opposite party. The complainant changed the connected load of the premises without the permission of the Board which is a clear violation of the conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. So a penal bill is charged against the complainant.

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 P6

(series) marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for cancelling the hike penal bill issued by the opposite party. The complainant was examined as PW1. The bill issued by the opposite party is marked as Ext.P1 and the mahazar prepared by the opposite party is Ext.P2. It is also admitted by the complainant that they are running a private finance institution in the said building and PW1 is not aware of the tariff of connection of

electricity. It is also deposed that he was not aware that the tariff of electric connection of the financial institutions is LT VIC. The mahazar was admitted by PW1, but he disputed that 160 Watt bulb written in the mahazar is not correct. The opposite party inspected the premises of the complainant and prepared a mahazar. As per the mahazar, the connected load is 1320. As per the complainant, the only dispute on the mahazar is that a 60 Watt bulb written in the mahazar is not correct. It is also admitted that they are running a private bank in the said premises. Even the 60 Watt bulb is avoiding from the mahazar, the connected load of the complainant's building will not come under 1000 Watts. As per the opposite party, the VIIB tariff is issuing for small shops and bunks, for which connected load below 1000 Watts and above 1000 watts the tariff is fixed as LT VI C. So the opposite party charged for the unauthorised connected load, which is a clear violation of the conditions of the Supply of Electrical Energy and misuse of energy. The details of the penal bill is given to the complainant itself. So we think that the opposite party has done with good faith and no deficiency is seen on the part of the opposite parties and the petition may be dismissed.

Hence the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Jijo Joseph

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Penal Bill dated 29.01.2009 for Rs.17,600/-

Ext.P2 - Copy of Mahazar prepared by the 4th opposite party dated 28.01.2009

Ext.P3 - Copy of Disconnection Notice No.BB/2008-09 dated 29.01.2009

Ext.P4 - Copy of Petition filed by the Compainant to the second opposite party

Ext.P5 - Photocopy of lease deed, dated 23.09.06

Ext.P6(series) (a) - Photocopy of bill No.B01/13/14 dated 4.10.2008 for Rs.563/-

(b) - Photocopy of bill No.B01/13/14 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs.662/-

100. - Photocopy of bill No.B01/13/15 dated 4.10.2008 for Rs.85/-

(d) - Photocopy of bill No.B01/13/15 dated 5.12.2008 for Rs.85/-/-

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil