KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.465/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/7/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Pattom.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram : APPELLANTS 2. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, K.S.E.B., Ponkunnam. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs T.R.Amminiammal, M/s.Revathi Oil Mills, : RESPONDENTS Ponkunnam, Kottayam. (By Adv.P.Biju.P) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP.No.150/02 of CDRF, Kottayam and by the order dated 29/4/04 they are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 additional bill for Rs.56,491/- and to pay cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The grievances voiced by the complainant in the OP are that she was running an Oil Mill having Consumer No.9382 under LT IV tariff and was paying the electricity charges regularly. It is her case that on 23/3/02 the 2nd opposite party along with some other officials inspected the premises of the complainant and based on this inspection the impugned bill was issued stating that there was unauthorized additional load of 12 KW installed in her premises. It is her further case that she was using the sanctioned load only and there was no occasion for her to have additional load connected in her premises and alleging deficiency of service the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill amount of Rs.56,491/- with compensation and cost. 3. The 2nd opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of the 1st opposite party wherein it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable and that it was without exhausting statutory remedy that she has approached the Forum. The opposite parties further submitted that there was surprise inspection in the premises of the complainant on 19/3/01 and it was found out that there was additional load of 12 KW which amounted to misuse of energy as contemplated in Clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply. The opposite parties further contended that the site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer was accepted by the agent of the petitioner and in such a situation the bill issued was only proper and maintainable. Hence there was no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and they argued for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by both sides and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 to B4. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum in directing the appellants to cancel the bill is illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case. It was also argued by him that the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint as the bill was issued for unauthorized additional load and that the bill was prepared under Clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply. It was also submitted by him that Clause VI (d) of the Schedule to Indian Electricity Act 1910 clearly shows that the owner or occupier of the premises shall intimate the supplier of energy (opposite parties) any additions or alterations before the same is connected and the violation of said Clause amounts to misuse of energy coming under Clause 42 (d) of the Conditions of Supply. Hence it is his case that the Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records we find that in Ext.B2 notice the petitioner was asked to dismantle or regularize the unauthorized connected load. The complainant has no case that she has regularized the said load within the notice period. The opposite parties in Ext.B2 has specifically stated that there is unauthorized additional load of 12 KW. Though the complainant has disputed the unauthorized additional load she has not adduced any evidence to show that there was no unauthorized additional load and her sanctioned load itself was 52 KW as found out at the time of inspection. It is not necessary that the opposite parties should prove that the sanctioned load of the complainant is only 40 KW as the complainant had not anywhere stated her sanctioned laod or disputed that she had no unauthorized additional load. She was only concerned with the issue of the bill for Rs.56,491/-. However we find that the opposite parties have penalized the complaint by charging on the consumption actually recorded through the meter. The opposite parties have no case that the complainant had pilferaged electricity or tamped the meter apart from increasing her connected load. So we are of the opinion that the opposite parties can levy penal charges only for the unauthorized additional load at three times the rate applicable for the previous 6 months from the date of inspection. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances we find that the order dated 29/4/04 in OP No. 150/02 is liable to be modified and the opposite parties are directed to charge only for the unauthorized additional load of 12 KW at thrice the rate applicable for 6 months. The penal charges levied for the consumption of energy recorded through the meter cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed in part there by the order dated 29/4/04 in OP 150/02 of CDRF, Kottayam is modified to the effect that the opposite parties are at liberty to issue a fresh bill towards penal charges at thrice the rate applicable for 6 months for the unauthorized additional load only. The cost of Rs.1,000/- awarded by the Forum is also liable to be paid by the appellants. In the nature and circumstance of the case these shall be no order as to costs in the present appeal. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYA BHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER Pk
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
