orders
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 79/2008 & 95/2008
Friday, the 30th day of September , 2011
Petitioner : Mathew Philip,
ManagingPartner,
M/s. Mamma Products,
Manufacturers Ice Cream,
Kappumthala, Muttuchira,
Kottayam.
(By Adv. George Kurian)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vaidyuthibhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Kuravilangad.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath .P., President
Case of the petitioner in CC No. 79/2008, filed on 16..4..2008, is as follows. Petitioner is the Managing partner deputed to file this petition, as per vide resolution No. 1/08 Dtd: 12..4..2008. Petitioner’s partnership firm is manufacturing of Ice cream product, as a small scale industry, run as self employment for its partners. The income from the industry is used for the livelihood of the partners. Opposite parties are the suppliers of the electricity to the partnership firm and the petitioner firm is remitting all the bills issued to the petitioner. On 11..4..2008 opposite party issued an additional bill, for an amount of Rs. 88100/- to the petitioner. According to the second opposite party petitioner is consuming 40 KW power and this is over and above allotted connected load. Petitioner states that they got 33 KW sanctioned connected load from 2003 on words and the firm is only consuming 32 KW at present
-2-
and ie. even less than the allotted load. According to the petitioner the bill issued to the petitioner by the opposite party is without any basis and amounts to deficiency in service. So, petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 11..4..2008 amounting Rs. 88100/-. Petitioner also prays for a direction to the opposite party restraining them from disconnecting the electric supply to the petitioners premises.
Case of the petitioner in CC 95/2008 filed on 28..4..2008 is that: Subsequent to the filing of CC 79/2008 opposite party issued a bill for Rs. 22,689/-. Bill includes penal charges and enhanced fixed charges based on the alleged inspection conducted by the opposite party. In the said case petitioner prays for cancellation of the bill for Rs. 22689/- petitioner claims cost and compensation.
Opposite party filed version in CC 79/08 contenting that the petition is not a registered firm and the petitioner is not competent to file the petition. Opposite party admitted that consumer No. 9360 stands in the name of “Mama products”, Kappumthala the petitioner is conducting the business for commercial purpose and partners are not availing the service of the opposite party for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self employment. The averment that petitioner is clearing the bills up to till now is false. Bill for Rs. 19015/- is still pending. APTS conducted a surprise inspection and it is found out that consumer is using 14 KW of connected load. Authorized connected load of the petitioner is 28926 watts. The inspection was conducted in presence of the petitioner and one Jose Joseph. The power allocation to an extent of 33 KW on 18..2..2003 was given to the petitioner. The power allocation is not the sanctioned connected load and the petitioner firm has only sanctioned connected load of 29 KW. The bill issued to the petitioner is as per Section 126 of
-3-
Indian Electricity Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Opposite party filed version in CC No. 95/08 contenting that said petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted the issuance of the bill for Rs. 22,687/- Dtd: 15..4..2008. According to the opposite party the said bill is issued for the unauthorised additional load and is issued as per law and there is no deficiency in service in issuing the said bill.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs?
Evidence in both case consists of affidavit filed by petitioner and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 document on the side of the opposite party. PW1 and 2 examine and C1 commission report.
Point No. 1
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay the bill dtd: 11..4..2008 for Rs. 88100/- and bill Dtd: 15..4..2008 for Rs. 22,687/-. Both bills produced were marked as Ext. A3 and A4 respectively. Ext. A3 and A4 bills were issued as penal bill for un authorised additional load . According to the opposite party, opposite party conducted a surprise inspection on 8..4..2008 and UAL of 11 KW was detected. Opposite party had also charged 20% extra fixed energy charges for the non function of the capacitors. Petitioner has not disputed the inspection Dtd: 8..4..2008 and the preparation of mahazar. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner he filed an application for appointment of a commissioner as IA-573/09 same is allowed and the deputy electrical inspector of the concerned
-4-
electrical section is appointed as expert commissioner. Commissioner filed his report. Report of the commissioner is marked as Ext. C1. As per Ext. C1 the commissioner come to the conclusion that total load at the premises of the petitioner is ascertained as 35.345 KW and he further reported that the capacitors at the premises were not working. Petitioner filed objection to the commission report and petitioner further contented that the commission report is to be set aside. The commissioner is examined as PW1. Petitioner filed IA-422/10 for setting aside the C! commission report. The Fora dismissed IA 422/10 on the finding that electrical inspector is an independent authority and there is nothing to disbelieve electrical inspector. Petitioner cross examined PW1 electrical Inspector, but nothing was brought out to disbelieve PW1. So, we are of the view that the finding of the Electrical Inspector is correct. . The petitioner has a definite case that petitioner firm has a sanctioned connected load of 33 KW from 2003. It is true that the opposite party had given power allocation or of 33 KW. But it does not means that firm has a sanctioned connected load of 33 KW. The sanctioned connected load of the firm is only 29 KW. Opposite party has a definite case that there is UAL of 40 KW. From C1 report we are of the view that connected load at the premises of the petitioner is 35.345 KW. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1 both petition is allowed in part. Bill Dtd: 11..4..2008 for Rs. 88100/- and bill Dtd: 15..4..2008 for Rs. 22,687/- are cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue fresh penal bill to the petitioner, as if the load of the petitioner is 35.345 KW and capacitors of the petitioner are not working. Opposite party is ordered not to collect any penal charges or penal interest during the
-5-
litigation period. Order shall be complied with within one month of a copy of the receipt of the 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 30th day of September , 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the petitioner:
Ext. A1: Copy of resolution
Ext. A2: Copy of bill Dtd: 11..4..2008
Ext. A3: Copy of the letter dtd: 11..4..2008 issued by A.E
Ext. A4: Copy of the application of power dtd: 18..2..2003
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Copy of site Mahazar dtd: 8..4..2008
Court Exhibit
C1: Report of Electrical Inspector
PW1: Suresh C.G, Deputy Electrical Inspector
PW2: R. R. Venkadeswarakini.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
