Date of filing : 05-08-2011
Date of order : 19-10-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.195/2011
Dated this, the 19th day of October 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Rajesh.P.V, S/o. Rajkumar.P.V, } Complainant
“Rajasaudam”, Thadiyanvalappu,
Kodoth Vilalge, Po. Kanhiradukkam.
(Adv.M.Narayanan, Hosdurg)
1. The Asst. Engineer-in-charge, } Opposite parties
K.S.EB, Periya Bazar Section,
Po. Periya,
2. The Secretary, K.S.E.B,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Trivandrum.
(Adv.P.Raghavan, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Complainant is the beneficiary of electricity Consumer No.8837 of Periya Bazar Section. The connection still stands in the name of Achuthan, the previous owner of the building. The tariff is LT VIIB and the connected load is 480 watts. The APT squad inspected the connection on 13-07-2011 alleged to be using unauthorized extension of 185 watts and a bill dated 18-05-2011 has been served demanding `36,500/-. Therefore the complaint for an order setting aside the said bill.
2. According to the opposite parties complainant has effected an unauthorized tension of 0.18 KW for commercial use. Hence the penal bill is issued U/s 126 (5) of Electricity Amendment Act 2007 calculating the amount as per Sec 126 (6) of the Electricity Act. Therefore there is no negligence on their part.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts A1 to A5 marked on his side. On the side of opposite parties no evidence adduced. Both sides heard and documents perused.
1. Whether the complainant has used unauthorized connected load of 185 watts?
2. If so whether the issuance of impugned bill for `36,500/- is justifiable?
These are the questions to be answered in this complaint.
4. The opposite parties have no case that complainant has misused the energy by using the energy to which a lower tariff is applicable for a purpose to which higher rate is applicable.
Rule 50(9) of the KSEB Terms and conditions of supply 2005 deals with ‘Misuse of energy. As per that if the consumer uses energy supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff is used for a different purpose not contemplated in the contract for supply and for which higher tariff is applicable without Board’s knowledge and approval, the same will be treated as unauthorized use of energy with the meaning of the Electricity Act 2003.
As per the above definition it is clear that for attracting this provision one must use the energy supplied to him for a different purpose for which higher tariff is applicable. Here there is no unauthorized use of energy. In such a circumstance it cannot be hold that there is financial loss to the opposite party.
5. Moreover, even according to the opposite party the alleged unauthorized extension is 185 watts (.18 KW). But the impugned bill is issued assuming the alleged unauthorized extension as 1KW i.e. 1000 watts. The date of inspection is 13-07-2011. But the bill originated out of the inspection is dated 18-05-2011.
6. The Electricity Act 2003 nowhere provides that the penal bill has to be issued taking the unauthorized connected load at a minimum of 1KW however lesser the additional load would be. The opposite parties has not submitted any rules or regulations conferring power on them to issue such a bill considering the unauthorized load as One Kilo Watt. The only document the opposite parties relying to make such a claim is an order of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission explaining the schedule of Tariff and Terms and Conditions for retail supply by K.S.E.B with effect from 1-1-2010.
7. But on perusal of the said order we could not see any provision for issuing penal bill computing the connected load as 1 KW however lesser the additional load would be. The said order details that fixed charge has to be computed per Kilowatt or ‘part thereof’.
8. In the absence of any material placed before us to prove that complainant as a beneficiary of the electricity consumer No.8837 of Periya Bazaar electrical section has consumed electrical energy unauthorisedly, we are unable to hold that the impugned bill issued to the complainant is legally sustainable.
9. Further there is anomaly in the date of the bill also. As per Ext.A3 the APT squad inspected the premises of Consumer No.8837 on 13-07-2011. But the bill based on the inspection is dated 18-05-2011. This itself casts serious doubt about the genuineness of the bill.
10. In the circumstances aforesaid we hold that the claim of the opposite party as per the bill impugned is legally unsustainable.
The opposite parties are therefore directed to cancel the bill dated. 18-05-2011 for `36,500/-. They are further directed to refund the portion of the said amount i.e. `12,500/- the complainant paid for obtaining interim stay from this Forum against the disconnection of energy by opposite parties or in the alternative they can adjust the said `12,500/- in their future bills to be served in the Consumer No.8037 of the Periya Bazar Electricity Section. Time for compliance of order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Photocopy of Ownership fee of Rajesh.P.
A2.photocopy of site Mahazar.
A3. 18-05-2011.Photocpy of bill
A4.Photocopy of Notice.
A5. Photocopy of Bill
PW1.Rajesh.P.V.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
