ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
The complainant is a consumer bearing consumer number 851 of the 4th opp.party, . The 4TH opp.party allocated 4 KWA current supply to the complainant’s petrol pump on 1.6.1983 as per order No.DBI/PA.7/83-84/413 the complainant had complied all formalities including cash deposit and electric supply connected to the petrol pumps except Air compressor. The Air compressor was not connected to the electric system till now hence the compressor was not erected properly and efficiently by the company concerned. The complainant was paing regular electricity bills till the month of October, 2008 On 19..11.2008 the complainant received a provisional penal bill for Rs.66,722/- along with site mahazar and a notice stating that the complainant used unauthorized additional load. The complainant filed objection. But the opp.parties issued a final penal bill for Rs.42,469/- dated 26.12.2006. During the pendency of this dispute regarding the unauthorized additional load the opp.party issued regular electricity bill including fine of additional fixed charges of Rs.3,865/-. The complainant remitted the penal chare of Rs.3,865/-. Hence the complaint.
The opp.parties filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable with in law or on facts The complainant is a consumer bearing No.851 under LT VIIA tariff commercial Tariff in Electrical Section, Paravur. During an inspection on 20.10.2008 conducted by the 4th oipp.party an authorized additional load of 9 KW was detected at the premised of the Consumer No.851. As the consumer has been billed only for 1 KW since 1983, he was served with a penal assessment bill for 66,722 on 21..11..2008. After the consumer was heard personally by the authorities, a revised bill of Rs.42,469/- served to him. The mahazar has been prepared in presence of the pump Manager. He raised no objection while preparing the mahazar. No additional supply of energy has been authorized by the Board. As per Section 26 of Terms and Conditions of Supply 2005 if the consumer desires to increase the number or wattage of capacity of lights, fans, motors etc. on his premises, on a temporary or permanent basis there should be a request in writing made by the consumer to the Board. The claim of the complainant for 4 HP is admitted, there is an authorized load of 7 KW. The penal assessment bill served to the complainant is in accordance with Sec. 126 of Electricity Act 2003 for a period for 1 year. The additional load has been detected during the routine surprise inspection of the Asst. Engineer. There is no ill-motive behind the inspection and billing. The site was inspected by the Asst. Engineer on 20.10.2008 the next bill dated 14.12.2008 was issued as per the actual load detected on that date. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties pray to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties
2. Reliefs and costs.
For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P12 are marked
For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined.
POINTS:
Complainant’s case is that the 3rd opp.party allocated 4 KWA current supply to the complainant’s petrol pump on 1.6.1983 and the complainant had complied all formalities including cash deposit and electric sup-ply connected to the petrol pump s except Air Compressor. The complainant was paying regular electricity bills till the month of October 2008. On 19..11.2008 the complainant received a provisional penal bill for Rs.66,722/- along with a site mahazer and a notice stating that the complainant used unauthorized additional load. After flying object in the opp.party issued final penal bill of Rs.42,469/- dt. 26..12.2208. Against which the complainant filed this complaint for quashing the said bill and for getting back Rs.3865/-.
Opp.parties case is that they had given pro9visional allocation of 4 HP subject to the rules and regulations of the board and subject to the conditions mentioned in the P2 allocation order. The 4 HP allocation was not authorized so far since the complainant has not filled the conditions mentioned in Ext.P2. On 20.10.2008 an inspection was conducted by the Asst. Engineer Electrical Section, Paravoor and an unauthorized additional load of 9 KWS was detected in the premises of the complainant and a site mahazar Ext.P4 was prepared and on that basis a penal bill Rs.66,722/- was issued to the complainant. After hearing the complainant the bill revised as Rs.42,469/-. The said bill issued in accordance with Electricity Act and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant’s main prayer is to quash the final penal bill for Rs.42,469/- dt. 26..12..2006 and to get back Rs.3865/-. Opp.parties main case is that they have issued final penal bill for Rs.42,469/- on the basis of the inspection conducted by the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Paravur. According to them during the inspection time on unauthorized additional load of 9 KW was detected in the premises of the complainant and a site mahazer Ext.P4 was prepared. On analyzing the site mahazer Ext.P4 it is seen that nobody except the prepared Sub Engineer Mr.Sudhesan had signed on it. It is seen that Ext. P4 was prepared in the presence of Asst. Engineer, Sri. Ajayasree Harshan. But he has not signed on it. No independent witnesses were signed in Ext.P4. Moreover during the evidence time opp.party did not try to establish the veracity of Ext.P4. Any one that the prepared person or the Asst. Engineer who was present at the time of preparing Ext.P4 was examined by the opp.party. Without proving Ext.P4, this document cannot be accepted as evidence for the opp.party to establish that an unauthorized additional load of Rs.9 KWS was detected in the premises of the complainant.
According to the opp.party as per Ext.P1 request, only a provisional sanction before regularizing the load was given to the complainant and it would be authorized only after getting completion report from the complainant. Even though the complainant has not adduced any evidence to the effect that he had submitted the completion report, without proving Ext.P4 site Mahazer, the penal bill cannot be found issued legally. Hence by considering the entire evidence we find that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed. Ext.P6 bill dt. 26.12.2008 for Rs.42,469/- is quashed and given back Rs.3865/- which was remitted by the complainant as fine. Opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 16TH day of May, 2011.
.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Balachandran Achary
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Copy of Application dt. 2..5..1983
P2. – Power Allocation Letter
P3. . – Provisional Penal Bill
P4. – Site Mahazar
P5. – Letter dated 19..11.2008
P6. – Bill dt. 17..12.2008
P7. – Copy of proceedings
P8. – Bill dt. 14.12.2008
P9. – Report of Electrical Inspectorate
P10. – Report of Electrical Inspectorate dt. 7..3..2008
P11. – Letter sent by IOC Divisional Manager
P12. – Letter from IOC field office
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – Sivakumar
List of documents for the opp.parties :NIL
