BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.92/2009

Between

Complainant : Taj M.S,

Malamel House,

Kumily P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Biju Vasudevan)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst.Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,

Kumily.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant is a consumer of opposite party as Consumer No.7382-O for the electrical connection of his business premises in VII B tariff. There were three rooms owned by the complainant and they are given for lease. On 28.04.2009, the 2^nd opposite party came to the building and got signed in a paper from the complainant. When the complainant asked about it, 2^nd opposite party replied that it was for the consent paper fixing separate electric energy meter for three rooms. On 30.04.2009 a notice received from the opposite party stating that the tariff of electricity of the complainant's connection was changed into VII A tariff and an additional bill issued for Rs.31,997/-. The bill issued by the opposite party on 16.02.2009 for Rs.18,213/- was paid by the complainant. The complaint is filed for cancelling the extra bill issued by the opposite party because the complainant is paying the bills promptly.

2. As per the written version of the opposite party, the consumer No.7382 is connected with single phase commercial connection in LT VII B tariff for 6.06.2003 onwards with a connected load of 440 watts. The tariff was changed according to the inspection conducted on 28.04.2009. The tariff LT VIIB is meant for connecting load below 1000 Watts. On inspection it was seen that the connected load is 3293 Watts. The power is used by 3 different persons under lease agreement for 3 different purpose. There is an unauthorized use of electricity. So a mahazar is prepared. Complainant declined to accept copy of the mahazar. So action was initiated under Section 126 of Electricity Act which is appealable under Section 127 of the Act. 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 ?

(cont...2)

- 2 -

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P2(series) on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R4 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- Complaint is for cancelling the additional bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.31,997/-. Complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that if separate meter is fixed for each room, the tariff would be below VII B. Application was also given for the same, but the opposite party never received the same. The business is only for 2 months in Sabarimala season and the electricity is using only in that period. The notice issued by the opposite party as per Section 126 of Electricity Act is marked as Ext.P1. At the time of availing electrical connection it was told that, the connection was for 3 rooms. Complainant was not in the place when inspection conducted. 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. As per DW1, the connected load was 3293 watts. The copy of the consumption register from 6.06.2006 to 6.06.2009 is marked as Ext.R3. Copy of the service connection register is Ext.R4. It is understood that the consumption is only in a specific season. No investigation was conducted before 2009 by the opposite party. As per DW1, at the time of availing connection, the connected load was below 1000 watts. As per Ext.R4, it is written that total wattage – 440 Watt. But there is an unauthorized extension is seen. The learned counsel for the complainant when cross examined the opposite party, DW1 deposed that he cannot determine the oldness of the unauthorized extension. Complainant argued that the connection and the tariff was fixed after the inspection of the opposite party and the Panchayath authorities. It is also very clear from the Ext.R3 that the consumption increased only in a specific season, in the month of October to December, in other months the consumption is very low. The opposite party argued that the Ist opposite party issued notice under Section 126 of Electricity Act with demand cum disconnection notice for Rs.31,997/-, were issued together, unilaterally. The complainant was not given any chance for giving explanation, and opposite party unilaterally changed the tariff. The mahazar was prepared without inspecting the premises. So we think that the complainant's grievance would be rectified if separate meter is fixed for their separate rooms. There was no chance given to hear the complainant, before changing the tariff of the complainant's electrical connection and after issuing notice under Section 126 of Electricity Act. It is not proper to issue a huge bill stating "you can file appeal if needed". It is a gross deficiency in the part of the opposite party. The illiterate complainant should give a chance for giving explanation from their part before issuing the penalty. All the other bills were promptly paid by the complainant even Ext.P2 for Rs.18,213/-.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to cancel the Ext.P1 bill issued to the complainant for Rs.31,997/- dated 29.04.2009. The opposite party can issue fresh bill /Invoice and can change the tariff of electrical connection if needed after giving an opportunity to hear the complainant. The opposite party should consider the application for fixing separate meter for each room for the complainant's building. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of August, 2009

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 - M.S.Thaha

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - Joseph.P.Chacko

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - True copy of Additional Bill dated 29.04.2009 for Rs.31,997/-

Ext.P2(a) - Receipt dated 17.02.2009 for Rs.18,225/-

Ext.P2(b) - Photocopy of current bill dated 9.02.2009 for Rs.18,213/-

On the side of Opposite Parties:

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Site Mahazar dated 28.04.2009 prepared by the

Sub Enginer, KSEB Electrical Section, Kumily

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Short Assessment Bill dated 29.04.2009 for Rs.31,997/-

Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Consumption Register for the period 6/06 to 6/09

Ext.R4 - Photocopy of Service connection Register