KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 213/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:11-11-2010
PRESENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, TVPM.
2. The Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Division, Chittur.
3. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Section, Koduvayur.
(By Adv. Madvaoor.V. Mohan)
Vs.
Sherli, W/o Mani,
Bose Nivas, Vilayanchathanur,
Thenkurissi, Alathur Taluk, : RESPONDENT
Palakkad dist.
(By Adv.Sri.M.Alimuthu)
JUDGMENT
SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complaint in CC.22/09 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad. Complainant therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing Ext.A1 bill demanding a sum of Rs.18,616/-. The complainant alleged that the said bill was issued without any basis and there was no misuse of energy as contended by the opposite parties. Thus, the complainant prayed for cancelling A1 bill for Rs.18,616/-.
2. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending that there was misuse of energy by the complainant as consumer No.9247/-. The opposite parties justified their action in issuing A1 bill daed:29/10/2008.
3. Before the Forum below Ext.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3 documents were produced and marked from the side of the parties to the said complaint in CC.22/09. No oral evidence was adduced from either side. On an appreciation of evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:30th January 2010 allowing the complaint and thereby cancelling A1 bill for Rs.18,616/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is filed.
4. We heard both sides.
5.Learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He much relied on the entries on the reverse side of A1 bill and argued for the position that the A1 bill was issued as a provisional bill as provided in Sec.126 read with clause 50 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. He also relied on Ext.B3 letter dated:16/1/2009 stating that the final order has been passed as provided under the provisions of the electricity Act 2003 and the Forum below has gone wrong in holding that the provisions of the electricity supply code and the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 have not been followed in issuing A1 bill. Thus, the appellants prayed for setting side the impugned order passed by the Forum below. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He argued for the position that there is nothing on record to substantiate the case of misuse of energy or unauthorized use of energy as contended by KSEB and that the opposite parties cannot be justified in demanding the amount covered by A1 bill and A3 letter dated:16/1/2009. Thus, the respondent prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
6. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant was a consumer under KSEB with consumer No.9247. The aforesaid electricity connection was given for industrial purpose under tariff LT IV. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant entered into a minimum guarantee agreement with the opposite party/KSEB. It is the case of the opposite party/KSEB that the complainant misused the energy provided under the industrial tariff by using the energy for commercial purpose. But, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant/consumer consumed energy for commercial purpose. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant/consumer unauthorisedly used the energy for commercial purpose of running a Toddy shop or for storing Toddy. But the opposite parties have not adduced any evidence regarding the alleged misuse or unauthorized use of energy for commercial purpose. No mahazar is seen prepared by the officials of KSEB evidencing misuse or unauthorized use of energy by the complainant/consumer. It is also to be noted that nobody has been examined from the side of the opposite parties in support of their case regarding misuse/unauthorized use of energy supplied for industrial purpose. In effect, the opposite parties miserably failed in substantiating their case that the additional bill (Ext.A1provisional bill) was issued for misuse or unauthorized use of energy. If that be so, the opposite parties cannot be justified in issuing A1 provisional bill or passing a final bill covered by A3/B3 letter dated:16/1/2009.
7. The appellants/opposite parties have got a case that they followed the provisions of Regulation 50 of Electricity Supply code 2005 by issuing B3 letter dated:16/1/2009. It is true that B3 letter dated:16/1/2009 would show that Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Koduvayoor considered the objection filed by the complainant, vide objection dated:18/11/2008 and after considering the aforesaid complaint, Ext.A1 provisional bill was confirmed directing the complainant/consumer to remit Rs.18,616/-. A perusal of B3 letter dated:16/1/2009 would make it clear that the opposite parties have not substantiated their case regarding misuse or unauthorised use of electrical energy by the complainant/consumer. The mere assertion in B3 letter that the complainant used electrical energy for commercial purpose under tariff LT VII B or VII A cannot be accepted as such without any materials on record. So, the Forum below can be justified in cancelling A1 bill as the same was issued without following the procedures provided under the Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and the Electricity Act, 2003. The present appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.22/09 deserves dismissal. The Forum below is also justified in holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing A1 bill and B3 letter. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VL.
