DATE OF FILING : 21.07.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.156/2010
Between
Complainant : Biju P.P,
Pulickal House,
Kodikkulam P.O,
Kodikkulam,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section,
Kaliyar P.O,
Vannappuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section,
Kaliyar P.O,
Vannappuram.
3. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhyudhi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
O R D E R
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Complainant is a consumer of KSEB, he had an industrial connection from 2005 onwards. Complainant was owned and operated a production unit of plastic hose named "Bijies Industries". It was started as a scheme of self employment. His connection was under the LT IV tariff and his consumer number is 9766. The Ist opposite party is taking meter reading every month and the 2nd opposite party also inspected his premises. Complainant was paying his current bills regularly. In the second week of June 2010, the complainant himself understood that one phase in the meter is not working. Soon he intimated the fact to the opposite party, but the opposite party had not taken any steps to rectify the defect. On 18.06.2010 the Anti Power Theft Squad inspected his premises and made a mahazar in which they found that the connected load is very high and gave a bill for Rs.2,67,068/-. Complainant stated that the Anti Power Theft Squad's findings were faulty. They recorded that he had been using 12 HP motor for a period of one year. The petitioner himself stated the facts to opposite parties 1 and 2. But the opposite party calculated the connection load and current charge as per the mahazar. Again the petitioner approached to the opposite party and they reduced the bill amount from 2,67,068/- to Rs.1,02,939/-. The opposite parties are demanding such an exorbitant amount is totally without any base. The additional bill and mahazar are not correct. Complainant alleging deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party in the issuance of additional bill and also calculating the period of 1 year for the new unit. He also stated that he had reported the defect of meter much earlier than the inspection. The opposite party hides everything and given an enormous bill to him. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting a direction against the opposite parties to cancel the additional bill and also claiming other damages also.
2. The opposite parties filed written version. In the written version, the opposite party stated that it is an industrial connection, so the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant's agreed connected load is 36000 Watts. The petitioner had not submitted any complaint regarding the non-working of the energy meter till 18.06.2010. The meter ceasing to work in one phase cannot be rectified due to changing of the feeder. Only one low tension feeder exists from the distribution transformer, which is solely extended to the industrial premises of the petitioner and there is no chance to change the feeder as described in the petition. It is not easy to identify the non-working of the energy meter in one phase. The opposite party admitted the fact that 50% of the consumption was not being recorded and that the complainant had effected unauthorised additional load to meet the increased demand of his product. The petitioner never reported the purchase of the additional production unit. As a part of inspection the meter reading register of bulk energy consumers were verified and the Anti Power Theft Squad noted the abnormal decrease in the consumption of Consumer No.9766 and certain irregularities in power consumption during the month of 4/2010. This abnormality of reduction in consumption compelled the Assistant Engineer and the Anti Power Theft Squad to inspect the premises on 18.06.2010. On inspection it is found out that the petitioner had used an additional load, that unauthorised additional load is 13 KW. So served a bill of Rs.2,67,068/- to the complainant. The opposite party stated that the detection of unauthorised additional load and the issue of penal bill are as per rules.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant. The opposite party is examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on their side.
5. The POINT :- Ext.P1 is the copy of site mahazar. Ext.P1 duly endorsed and copy had been served to the complainant. Ext.P2 is the additional bill with notice of the opposite party to the complainant dated 24.06.2010. Ext.P3 is also a provisional invoice bill of the opposite party dated 14.07.2010. Ext.P4 is an agreement regarding the purchase of a new production unit. Ext.P5 is the application form for Small Scale Industrial Certificate. Ext.R1 is the copy of the meter reading register of the complainant. Ext.R2 is the copy of complainant's petition dated 28.06.2010 addressed to the Ist opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the disputed additional bill. Ext.P1 site mahazar leads to Ext.P2. In Ext.P1 site mahazar any objection of the petitioner is not marked. Ext.P4 shows the purchase of a new production unit. The opposite party in their detailed written version described the cause of Ext.P2. Complainant had given an appeal petition against Ext.P2 bill. The opposite party considered the bill and the amount was reduced and given another bill that is Ext.P3. Complainant never made an attempt to intimate the opposite party about the purchase of the new production unit. Ext.P1 shows that the complainant had consumed additional load of 13 KW. In this aspect we think that no deficiency is proved against the opposite parties.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the opposite parties.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2010
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - Biju.P.P
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - Arun.G.C
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Copy of Site Mahazar prepared by Geetha G.T, Sub Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannappuram
Ext.P2 - Provisional Assessment Bill dated 24.06.2010 issued by the opposite party
Ext.P3 - Final Assessment Bill dated 14.07.2010 issued by the opposite party
Ext.P4 - Agreement dated 03.06.2010 for purchase of a machine
Ext.P5 - Copy of Application Form for SSI Registration Certificate
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of Meter Reading Register in favour of the complainant
Ext.R2 - Copy of complainant's appeal petition dated 28.06.2010 addressed to the Ist opposite party
