O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant and his family engaged in cardamom cultivation. The petitioner availed electric connection from the opposite party as Consumer No.373 in the year 1988, afterwards it was changed as consumer No.7873 for his residential purpose. The opposite parties were issuing bills as per the meter reading and the complainant was promptly paying the same. In August 2008, the complainant constructed a cardamom drying store in his premises in order to dry the cardamom harvested from his plants. A motor fan was used for drying the cardamom and the matter was informed to the opposite party and also applied for changing the tariff of the electricity. The opposite party never initiated any action on that application. But on 16.10.2008, the officers of the opposite party inspected the premises and issued a bill for Rs.11,560/- to the complainant. Fearing the threat of disconnection, complainant paid the bill issued by the opposite party on 17.10.2008. After that on 14.10.2009 another penal bill was issued for Rs.20,723/- to the complainant. That was also paid by the complainant on 29.10.2009 because the opposite party threatened that the connection would be disconnected if the amount is not paid. Again on 2.11.2009 a bill was issued by the opposite party for Rs.3,340/-, but the unit of electrical energy written in that bill is 82. The opposite party threatened that the connection will be disconnected if the bill is not paid. The complainant was using the electric connection only for residential purpose and the bills were duly remitted by the complainant. So this petition is filed for cancelling the bill issued by the opposite party and also against deficiency in service of the opposite party.

2. As per the objection filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that an electric connection with consumer No.7873 was given to the complainant on 13.12.1989 under LT IA tariff with connected load of 5320 W. In 2008 he built a cardamom drier and used the electricity which is given to domestic purposes without the permission of KSE Board. On 16.10.2008 APTS wing of KSEB inspected the premises and found that there was a misuse of energy and issued a bill for Rs.11,560/- towards the penal bill for misuse of energy. Along with the bill, a notice was issued directing him to regularise the electric connection or to remove the unauthorised load and to report to the Assistant Engineer. But the complainant did not so far respond to the notice. An audit was conducted on 8.09.2009 and found that the consumer has not regularised the tariff. It was also seen that the complainant had remitted only the ordinary bill. So a fresh notice was given to him on 27.10.2009 and he remitted the penal bill on 29.10.2009. If the consumer has any dispute against the bill issued to him, he has a right to give complaint to the assessing officer or to the appellate authority. But in this case the consumer has not done such any appeal to anyone. As per the conditions of supply, if the connected load or purpose of the premises is changed without the prior permission of the Board, action can be initiated. The opposite parties have issued bill only as per the rules and regulations of law. So there is no deficiency in service and the petition may be dismissed.

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 P3(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite parties.

5.The POINT :- The complaint is filed for cancelling the hike bill issued by the opposite party to the residential connection of the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1.Ext.P1(series) are the bill dated 14.10.2009 for Rs.20,723/- and bill dated 2.11.2009 for Rs.3,340/- issued by the opposite party. The complainant availed the electric connection only for residential purpose. In August 2008, PW1 constructed a cardamom drying store in the premises of his residence. A motor fan was fitted there to dry the cardamom and the matter was duly intimated to the opposite party in order to change the tariff. But the opposite party never responded to the application but they inspected the premises and issued a penal bill for Rs.11,560/- on 17 .10.2008, another bill for Rs.20,723/- on 14.10.2009. These bills were paid by the complainant because the complainant was in the fear of disconnection of the electric connection. Another bill was issued on 2.11.2009 for Rs.3,340/-. As per the bill, the energy used by the complainant was only 82 units for residential purpose. Ext.P2 is the bill dated 17.10.2008 for Rs.11,560/- issued by the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the demand notice issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.20,723/-. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, PW1 admitted that he used electricity from the residential connection to the cardamom drier. But it was only for trial run, only 4 to 5 days. An application was given to the opposite party for regularising the connection, but no documents produced to show the same. Cash deposit was also done. But the connection was received only after filing this complaint before this Forum. No written application was given to the opposite party Board, stating that trial run was conducted and also to regularise the connection. The Sub Engineer of the opposite party was examined as DW1. The complainant was having a residential connection but another connection was also received now. If 82 units of electrical energy is used in domestic connection, the amount of the bill would be Rs.135/-. But the complainant was not using the same for domestic purpose. An inspection was conducted and a mahazar was prepared, but the mahazar was not produced before the Forum. The opposite party issued CFL lamps to the consumers who reduced consumption as 10%. The consumer No. of that customer also will be written in the side of the lamp. A CFL lamp was issued to the complainant also. MO-1 is the cover of the CFL lamp issued to the complainant from the opposite party. DW1 also inspected the premises of the complainant. The Meter Reader is regularly inspecting the electric energy meter of the complainant’s residence and paying the bills and a register is kept in the office.

The complainant started a cardamom drying store in his premises in August 2008 and a motor fan is used for drying of the cardamom. This matter was informed to the opposite party and an application for change the tariff was also given to the opposite party. But when cross examined by the learned counsel for the opposite party, complainant admitted that no written application was given. No CD receipt is produced by the complainant to show that he had applied for changing the tariff of the electricity. It is admitted by the complainant that electric connection for trial run of the cardamom drying store was taken from the domestic connection and that was only for 4-5 days and the matter was informed to the opposite party. The opposite party deposed that there is no such application for changing the tariff was given to the opposite party’s office by the complainant. But the same was given only after issuing the penal bills and so another connection was given now. So we think that there is no written application was given by the complainant to change the tariff of electric connection even after issuing penal bills to the complainant by the opposite party. It is admitted by PW1 that he consumed electrical energy from the domestic connection for the cardamom drying store for a short period. No CD receipt produced to show that he has applied for another connection as per the industrial tariff. So the opposite party inspected the premises and issued penal bill for unauthorised connection. In Ext.P3 demand notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant, it is directed by the opposite party to change the tariff of the connection of the complainant. But the complainant never tried to make any arrangements to change the tariff and so penal bill was issued for Rs.20,723/-. It means that the complainant never tried to apply for changing the tariff upto 14.10.2009 in which the penal bill was issued. These matters were not at all challenged by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite parties.
 

Hence the petition dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of March, 2010

                                        Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                                       Sd/-
 

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

                                         Sd/-
 

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

  APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Sajan Mani

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - R.Sanjeevkumar

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1(series) - Current Bill dated 14.10.2009 for Rs.20,723/-, Current Bill

dated 2.11.2009 for Rs.3,340/- and receipts for the same

Ext.P2(series) - Current Bill dated 17.10.2008 for Rs.11,560/- and receipt

for the same

Ext.P3 - Disconnection Notice dated 14.10.2009 issued by the 3^rd

opposite party

MO-1 - Cover of CFL Lamp

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil