CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.295/08
Tuesday the 23rd day of August, 2011
Petitioner : M.Raju,
Asanparambil House,
Mallooserry PO.
Proprietor,
Rony Grinders,
Development Plot,
Poovanthuruth PO, Kottayam.
(Adv. K.Karjet)
Vs.
Opposite party : KSEB, Vydhyuthi Bhavn,
Pattom, Rep.by its Secretary.
2) Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section, Nattakom,
Moolavattom PO, Kottayam.
3) Executive Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Division,
Pallom.
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 12/11/08, is as follows:-
Petitioner is a consumer of the 1st opposite party. Petitioner is conducting SSI unit by taking electricity connection from 1st opposite party with vide consumer No.6100. The petitioner is solely depending upon the income from the SSI unit for his livelihood. Petitioner was served with an additional bill for Rs.1,54,795/-. Bill was served with a covering letter alleging that as per the inspection dtd 20/10/08 by the Anti Power Theft Squad. Opposite party found connected load of 65KW instead of authorised connected load of 45KW. According to the petitioner additional equipments were installed on the basis of allocation of additional connected load of 25KW. According to the petitioner he submitted application for allocation on 10/7/08 and allocation letter from the opposite parties dtd 26/8/08 was received to him. According to the petitioner equipments were not actually connected to supply but only installed and that too after 26/8/08 ie, on 10/10/08. According to the petitioner there is no additional unauthorised load. At any rate the use of additional connected load can be taken only from 26/8/08. After getting the bill petitioner filed an application to the 2nd opposite party to cancel the bill. But so far no steps have been taken by the opposite parties to cancel the bill. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party in issuing additional bill amounts to clear deficiency in service. Hence the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to cancel the erroneous bill dated 3/11/08 for Rs.1,54,795/-. Petitioner claims Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
Opposite party entered appearance, filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party working to the firm is not only for the livelihood to the petitioner it is a commercial activity so the petitioner is not a consumer. On 16/10/08APTS conducted a surprise inspection in the premises of the petitioner and detected an unauthorised additional load of 20KW. A site mahazar was prepared by Sub Engineer. Opposite party admitted that 25HP power allocation has been allotted to the petitioner on 26/8/08. This means 25 HP load of the 250KVA transformer is spared to the petitioner on certain conditions. On receipt of completion certificate a site inspection will be conducted and ACD collected then only sanction for installing additional load and for extra consumption is given. Opposite party denied contention of the petitioner that he is using the additional connected load only after 26/8/08. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Exts.A1 to A3 documents on the side of petitioner and Ext.B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Petitioner challenged the disputed bill dtd 10/10/08 for an amount of Rs.1,54,795/-. Disputed bill produced is marked as Ext.A1. But nothing has been brought out by the petitioner to disprove the inspection dtd 20/10/08 and the preparation of the mahazar. So in our view case of the opposite party with regard to the inspection and detection of the unauthorized load of 20KW is admitted by the petitioner. Petitioner has a definite case that he applied for power allocation and the power allocation letter dtd 26/8/08 was issued to the petitioner. Opposite party also admitted the issuance of the power allocation letter to the petitioner on 26/8/08 for 25HP load. According to the opposite party power allocation should be given by submitting a completion report and on receipt of the prescribed ACD. Opposite party produced the calculation statement with regard to the Ext.A1 bill. Calculation details produced is marked as Ext.B6. From Ext.B6 it can be seen that petitioner is penalized for 12 months as per sub section (5) of Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003.
Section 126(5) states that if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity is taken place it shall be presumed that such unauthorised use of electricity was continuing for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. Unless the onus is rebutted by the person, occupier or possessor of such premises or place. Copy of the meter reading register is produced and same is marked as Ext.B5. From Ext.B5 it can be seen that the consumption of the petitioner is increased from 7/2008. According to the petitioner he applied for additional power allocation on 10/7/08 so, it can presume that petitioner is indulging in unauthorised use of electricity most probably from said dates. As per section 126(5) 12 months penal bill is to be issued in cases were the period of unauthorised use of electricity cannot be determined. Here admittedly petitioner applied for additional power allocation on 10/7/08 , so the normal presumption that can be drawn is that petitioner is in unauthorised use of electricity from 10/7/08. In our view act of the opposite party in issuing an additional bill by penalizing the petitioner for 12 months amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed in part, bill dtd 3/11/08 for an amount of Rs.1,54,795/- is cancelled. Opposite party is directed to issue a fresh bill to the petitioner as if the petitioner is in unauthorised use of electrical energy from July 2008. Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of copy of order. 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 23rd day August, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner.
Ext.A1-Bill dtd 3/11/08
Ext.A2-Letter dtd 3/11/08 by the Asst.Engineer to the consumer
Ext.A3-Power allocation dtd 26/8/089
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-Site mahazar
Ext.B1-Copy of power allocation letter dtd 26/8/08
Ext.B3-Letter dtd 3/11/08
Ext.B4-Affidavit of one Ajith C.Mohan
Ext.B5-Copy of meter reading register.
Ext.B6-Letter dtd 17/10/08 issued by the APTS to the A.E, Nattakom.
