THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 212/2007.
Tuesday, the 14th day of June, 2011
Petitioner : M.G Sreedevi,
Divya Prabha,
Marappalam, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. P.K. Chitrabhanu)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Secretary,
KSEB, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2) The Deputy Chief Engineer,
KSEB, Pattom.
3) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
KSEB Electrical Major Section,
Sastri Road, Kottayam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavananth P., President.
This is a remanded case from the Hon’ble State Commission, as per its order in appeal No. 856/2003 dtd: 13..8..2007. Appeal is preferred by the opposite party electricity board from the order Dtd: 5..8..2003 passed by this Forum in O.P No. 151/02. Crux of case of the petitioner is as follows. Petitioner is the owner of C.K.G Towers, Kanjikuzhy, a commercial complex. The building is constructed with 3 floors and cellars. During the construction of the building petitioner obtained temporary power connection for construction purpose. After completion of the construction, two permanent electric connection were obtained in the building with consumer numbers 6836 and 7038 of the 3rd opposite party. On 12..3..2002 petitioner was served with a notice alleging that petitioner un authorizedly extended power supply to the tune of 17 KW by connecting welding equipments and it was used for more than one month. According to the petitioner notice issued by the opposite party is in violation of clause 42 of conditions of supply of electrical energy. The demand
-2-
notice dtd: 18..3..2002 issued y the opposite party is illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner alleges deficiency in service in issuing demand notice cum bill. This petition is filed for canceling the demand notice, compensation and costs.
3rd opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of other two opposite parties with the following contentions. The Assistant Engineer working under 3rd opposite party inspected the premises of consumer No. 7038 on 8..3..2002 and found that the petitioner had extended power from consumer No. 7038 to a 14 KVA welding set in the upstairs and another 8KVA welding set in the ground floor.
Moreover tube lights were put in to operation in the temporary manner. 17KW un authorized load was thus temporarily extended and that too was put in to operation. As per cause 42 (d) of the conditions of supply of electrical energy and subsequent amendment. Act of the petitioner amounts to mis use of energy and has to be billed at three times rate applicable to respective tariff. So, as per tariff revision order rate applicable to temporary extension is Rs. 38 per K.W or part there of per day. Hence bill for 30 days extension was prepared and served on the petitioner which he is liable to pay. Two welding sets were found by the Assistant Engineer when he inspected the site. Petitioner has not submitted any version as alleged. Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the petition.
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 document on the side of the opposite party.
Point No. 1
Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission remanded the matter to this Fora with a direction to give an opportunity to the opposite parties to prove there case, to prove Ext. B1 mahazar. Opposite party in order to prove the mahazar examined one P.I Sadanandan as DW1 to prove Mahazar. Original Mahazar produced
-3-
is marked as Ext. B2. Ext. B3 is an intimation letter given by the opposite party to the petitioner intimating him about the assessment which is done as per Ext. B1 mahazar. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to disbelieve Ext. B2 mahazar. On going through mahazar it can be seen that petitioner has un authorisedly drawn temporary extension to two welding sets having a total of 22 KVA. In our view there is nothing to disbelieve DW1 and B2 Mahazar. The disputed bill produced by the petitioner is marked as Ext. A4. Since an unauthorized use of electricity was detected opposite party has the right to issue penal bill as per the provisions of clause 42 (d) of supply of electrical energy. So, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in issuing Ext. A4 bill. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Opposite party is not entitled for any penal charges or any penal interest for the disputed bill amount as per Ext. A4 because the petitioner is bonafidely contesting the case before proper forum. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of June, 2011.
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 leave and licence agreement
Ext. A2: Letter Dtd: 11..3..2003
Ext. A3: Copy of written version
Ext. A4: Additional bill for Rs. 58140/-
Documents for the opposite party:
Ext. A1: Copy of the mahazar
Ext. B2: Original of Ext. B1
Ext. B3: Intimation letter
Witness
DW1: P.I. Sadanandan.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
