THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present:

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishan, Member

CC No. 41/2008

Thursday, .the 11^th day of December, 2008.

Petitioner : Siju Punnoose,

Velamkadavil House,

Kurichi Village,

Changanacherry, Kottayam.

(By Adv. K. Karjet.)

Vs.

Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram

rept. By its Secretary.

2) The Asst. Engineer,

Electrical Section,

Nattakom, Moolavattom P.O

Kottayam.

3) The Sub Engineer,

KSEB, Nattakom, Kottayam.

O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board . Petitioner is conducting SSI unit by taking electricity connection with vide consumer No. 7920 from the first opposite party. According to the petitioner income from the said unit is the only source of livelihood of petitioner. On 25..2..2008 anti power theft squad along with 3^rd opposite party inspected the unit of the petitioner. Prepared a mahasar and conducted inspection. Subsequently on 29..2..2008 petitioner was served with an additional bill for an amount of Rs. 202003/-. The petitioner states that bill is prepared on the reason that the petitioner is using 71 KW instead of 48 KW which is allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner he had entrusted an electrician to submit application for the

-2-

additional connected load before the first opposite party. Petitioner states that bill issued to the petitioners is not correct and legal. The petitioner states that calculation made by the opposite parties to arrive at the bill amount is erroneous and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, the petitioner prays for directing the opposite party to cancel the bill dtd: 29..2..2008 issued to the petitioner and also to pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioner.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. The opposite party contented that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint against assessment made under Section 126 of the Indian Electricity Act by virtue of section 145 of the electricity Act. Opposite party contented that the petitioner without any prior notice transfer the ownership of the service connection and executed fresh agreement so, on that ground also petition is not maintainable. Other contention of the opposite party is that the connection is for making business and not for earning the liveli hood of the petitioner as a means of self employment. The opposite party contented that APTS conducted a surprise inspection at the premises of the Consumer No. 7920 on 25..2..2008 and detected un authorised load of 23 KW. Detailed site mahasar was prepared during above inspection. Consequently provisional bill amounting Rs. 202003/- as per section 126 of Electricity Act 2007 had been issued to the petitioner with a covering letter explaining reason, calculation and details of the bill. According to the opposite party bill is issued as per law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.

-3-

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

Iii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite parties.

Point No. 1

Since the opposite party had taken a contention that the petition is not maintainable that question is to be decided firstly. According to the opposite party since assessment is under section 126 of the electricity act by virtue of section 145 of the said act. the Fora lacks jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Other contention of the opposite party with regard to the maintainability is that since the petitioner is conducting the said business for profit making the petition is not maintainable. We are of the view that the Hon'ble National Commission in Jharkhand State Electricity Board and another Vs. Anvar Ali ( Report in 2008 CPJ 839 NCDRC) stated that jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum should not and would not be curtailed unless there is express provision which prohibit the Forum to take up the matter which false within jurisdiction of Civil Court or any other Forum established under any other eactmenty. The Hon'ble National Commission further stated that against assessment order passed under section 126 the consumer has option to either to file a petition under section 127 of the Electricity Act or to approach the Consumer Fora by filing complaint. Consumer has to select either of the remedy however, before entertaining the complaint the consumer has to deposit an

-4-

amount as specified in Section 127 (2) of the Electricity Act. As per Section 127 (2) of the electricity amended Act 2007 (No. 26 of 2007) no appeal against an order or assessment under sub section (1) shall be entertain unless an amount equal to half of the assessed amount is deposited in cash or by way of bank draft with the licensee and documentary evidence of such deposit has been enclosed along with the appeal.

Here the petitioner has not deposited half the assessed amount as per section 127 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act. So, we are of the view that on that ground the petition is not maintainable before the Forum so, the petition is dismissed for non compliance of section 127 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act.Point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2 and 3.

In view of finding in point No. 1, there is no need for discussion of the point No. 2 and 3. In the result petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances in 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 11^th day of December, 2008.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishan, Member Sd/-

-5-

Documents for the Petitioner

Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 7..3..2008 . for an amount of Rs. 202003/-

Ext. A2: Penalty letter dtd: 29..2..2008 issued by the Asst. Engineer.

Ext. A3: Agreement Dtd: 28..12..2008

Ext. A4: Copy of letter dtd: 4..3..2008 issued by Siju Punnoose to the Asst.

Engineer, Nattakom.

Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 10..9..2007 for an amount of Rs. 58598/-

Ext. A5(a) Bill Dtd: 10..10..2007 for an amount of Rs. 84686/-

Ext. A5(b) Bill Dtd: 9..11..2007 for an amount of Rs. 22428/-

Ext. A5(c) Bill Dtd: 10..12..2007 for an amount of Rs. 76248/-

Ext. A5(d) Bill Dtd: 10..1..2008 for an amount of Rs. 65447/-

Ext. A5(e) Bill Dtd: 11..2..2008 for an amount of Rs. 66028/-

Documents for the Opposite party:

Ext. B1: Site mahazar dtd: 25..2..2008

Ext. B2: Penalty notice issued by the Asst. Engineer, Dtd: 29..2..2008.

By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

amp/ 6 cs.