DATE OF FILING : 21.07.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.159/2010
Between
Complainant : James A.P,
Arackal 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,
Idukki District.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section,
Kaliyar P.O, Vannappuram,
Idukki District.
3. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhyudhi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
(All by Adv: C.K.Babu)
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is conducting an SSI unit in the name and style "Arackal Oil Mills" for his livelihood for the production of coconut oil, coconut cake, curry powder etc. The packing of the materials were also done in that industry. There is a room adjacent to the industrial unit which is used for the retail sale of these materials which are packed in the industrial unit. This room is a portion of the industrial unit. An electric connection was availed from the opposite party in the year 1999 as Consumer No.6839 by the complainant as LT IV tariff. A power meter and light meter were also supplied to the unit. The complainant was using an extension of electric connection from the light meter of the industrial unit to the said room, which was used for selling these products. It was done and used from the beginning of the industry and the complainant was using only one CFL bulb in the shop building. So the consumption was very low. Because there was low income from the industry, the complainant was compelled to start a provision store with stationery in the said building. The readings were taken promptly by the Ist opposite party in every month. Inspections were also done by the 2nd opposite party and the complainant was promptly paid the bills issued by the opposite party. On 22.06.2010, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite party from Vazhathoppu inspected the premises and prepared a mahazar stating that unauthorised extension was done by the complainant from the light meter of the industrial unit and a bill for Rs.18,200/- was issued to the complainant as provisional. It was also told by the opposite party that the packing unit and the other things used in the adjacent room as part of the industry was illegal. Eventhough the explanation was given by the complainant, the opposite party confirmed the provisional bill issued by them and a demand notice was issued on 13.07.2010. It is also threatened to disconnect the electric connection of the complainant. The complainant is using the extension from the industrial unit for the last 10 years and regularly doing the payments of the electricity. Several times the opposite party and their squad inspected the said building and it was also realised by them that the adjacent room is also a part of the industry. So the bill issued by the opposite party is illegal and it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite parties. So this petition is filed for cancelling the bill issued on 13.07.2010 for an amount of Rs.18,200/- and also for compensation.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant is having an electric connection under LT IV tariff from Electrical Section, Vannappuram as Consumer No.6839 which is solely meant for industrial purpose with connected load 7725 Watts, on 27.01.2000. Two number of energy meters were provided in the premises. Segregation of utility of electric power for power equipments and light load is essential in industrial units. The complainant is well studied about the segregation of power and light loads. So provisions were made by him for separate wiring, isolating devices like main switches etc. Building No.VI/279/08-09 of Kodikkulam Gama Panchayath is a well established multi business shop with stationery and grocery in the first floor of a double storied building. In this shop 4 number of lights, one sealing machine, one television and one tube light are connected and using power from the non-working energy meter with Sl.No.568427/5-20A. According to the purpose of use of the electricity, the tariff applicable to the shop is LT VIIA(Commercial). The monthly readings of the industrial premises of the petitioner is taking by the Sub Engineer and detailed inspection of the premises or installation will not be conducted during these occasions. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Vazhathoppu along with the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannappuram conducted a surprise inspection on the premises of the complainant in the presence of his wife Smt.Shaly James, Arackal House, Kodikkulam P.O on 22.06.2010 and found that the light meter in the industrial premises is not working and electric supply is extended to another business
shop with building No.VI/279/08-09 of Kodikkulam Grama Panchayath. Extension of electric current from one premises to another premises will be treated as unauthorised extension and site mahazer has been prepared in the presence of Smt.Shaly James. Oil Mill and Grocery shop are different building and holding different building numbers from Kodikkulam Grama Panchayath. In this circumstances, fixed charge for 1 Kilowatt connected load is charged for previous six months and a provisional invoice bill for Rs.18,200/- was served to the petitioner on 24.06.2010 along with a notice for a chance to file his objection if any within 7 days. The petitioner has not submitted any objection within the stipulated time and a final bill for Rs.18,200/- was served on 13.07.2010. So as per the Electricity Act 2003 Section 126 Electricity(Amendment) Act 2007 Sub Section V will be treated this as unauthorised extension. Even though the petitioner is stated that he is utilizing electric power in the business shop for the last 10 years he has been penalised only for 6 months at the double rate of Rs.50/- per Kilowatt for unauthorised extension of power to an extent of 545 watts. The shop in which the sale of stationery, grocery and packed oil, the working of television in a business room is not a part of the industry or industrial premises. The working of electric packing machine for oil, lights and television through a non-working energy meter caused revenue loss to KSEB for previous 10 years and it is absolutely illegal. So this petition may be dismissed.
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. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P8 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for cancelling the hike bill issued by the opposite party for an unauthorised extension of electric power. The complainant who deposed as PW1 has stated that he availed the electric connection from 1999 onwards as LT IV tariff for his SSI unit in which he is manufacturing coconut oil, coconut cake and making curry powders. An adjacent room in the industrial unit is used for the purpose of selling those products which are manufactured in the SSI Unit. So electric power was drawn through an extension from the light meter of the industrial unit from the early beginning of the industry itself. It is because of the low income from the industry, PW1 started a provision store in the adjacent room and it is continuing there. The complainant is promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party. But the Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite party inspected the premises on 22.06.2010 and issued a bill for Rs.18,200/- stating that unauthorised extension has been done by the complainant, which was the extension from the industrial unit to the adjacent room in which the packing and selling of the products were done. A mahazar was also prepared by the opposite party and copy of which is marked as Ext.P1. The bill issued by the opposite party for an amount of Rs.18,200/- is marked as Ext.P2. Even though the complainant filed objection, the opposite party confirmed the same. The confirmed bill is marked as Ext.P3. Another bill was also issued on 15.07.2010 after calculating the dues of the early bills, which is marked as Ext.P5. The complainant is running the industry with permanent registration, for making coconut oil, chilly powder, coriander powder, turmeric powder etc. Ext.P6 is the copy of the registration certificate of the unit. The bill issued on 14.11.2009 for an amount of Rs.587/- including the light meter charge is marked as Ext.P7. The bill issued in Consumer No.62-0 which is for the provision store for an amount of Rs.129/- is marked as Ext.P8. The opposite party who produced evidence as DW1. As per DW1, unauthorised extension was done as a temporary one and was easy to dismantle because it was not done through pipe. The tariff of electric supply to the industrial unit and shop are very different. The minimum charge for shop is Rs.5.45 for one unit and Rs.3.25 for the industrial unit. Notices were issued to the complainant on 24.06.2010 and on 13.07.2010 demanding to pay the bill for unauthorised extension, which are marked as Exts.R1 and R2 respectively. On cross examination of the learned counsel for the complainant, DW1 deposed that one meter of the unauthorised extension was done through the pillar. The higher officials of the opposite parties were not usually inspected the premises even though it is an industrial unit. The meter readings were taken only by the Sub Engineer.
6. As per the complainant, he was conducting an SSI unit and an adjacent room of the SSI unit is used for selling the products of the unit. The complainant is conducting a provision store in that adjacent room and he has taken electric connection from the light meter of the SSI unit from the very beginning of the industrial unit itself. It was using for the last 10 years. Eventhough the opposite parties' officials inspected the premises, they never supplied any other bill other than that of the industrial unit for the extension. No restrictions were done by the opposite party for the last 10 years. That room is also a part of the industry. So it is an authorized extension.
7. But as per the opposite party, the electric supply was given for the industrial unit with a low tariff and the light meter of the industrial unit was not working. But the complainant unauthorizedly made extension from the light meter of the industrial unit to the adjacent room which is a separate premises of the industry, as per the Electricity Act 2003 Section 126 Electricity(Amendment) Act 2007 Sub Section V. The complainant is conducting a provision shop which is exclusively included in the commercial tariff of the electricity, which is in room No.VI/279/08-09 of Kodikkulam Grama Panchayath. So when inspection was done by the APTS of the opposite party, it was found that the industry and the shop are working in two different building numbers of Kodikkulam Grama Panchayath and unauthorised extension was done by the complainant from the industrial unit. A mahazar was prepared, which is Ext.P1 in which it is written that two wires drawn from the industrial unit for a length of two meters in open space and four meters in concealed space inside the concrete pillar and connected to the switch board of the shop having building No.VI/279/08-09. The said room is in the upstair of the industrial unit. Bulbs two numbers with 60 Watts and 15 Watts, CFL two numbers with 15 Watts, a Sealing machine with 300 Watts, a T.V of 100 Watts and a tube light of 40 Watts were working in the said room. The mahazar was also signed by the wife of the complainant. So it is admitted by the complainant that he is using these extension for the last 10 years. But no restrictions were done by the opposite party for the last 10 years. The mahazar was not challenged by the complainant in anywhere. It means that the complainant was using four number of bulbs, one tube and one TV in the shop of the upstair of the SSI unit. It is also admitted in the complaint itself that he was conducting a provision store in the upstair of the industrial unit in which the products of industrial unit were selling. DW1 also admitted that even though the Sub Engineer was taking the readings, the opposite parties were not inspecting the building properly by their higher authorities even it is an SSI unit. So it is a deficiency from the part of the opposite party that they never inspected the building of the complainant for the last 10 years even though he was unauthorizedly using the extension from the SSU unit to his commercial shop. They have issued a bill for Rs.18,200/- which is a penal bill for 6 months eventhough the complainant was using the extension for 10 years. So the complainant was using this unauthorised extension thinking that it was legal because the opposite party never issued any notice for the same. As per the complainant he was consuming a very little electrical energy for his commercial shop, which is used as a provision store. But it is very clear from the mahazar that he was using a TV, a tube, a sealing machine and four bulbs in that provision store. It means that he was misusing the electricity which was drawn from the industrial unit. So we think that the complainant is bound to pay the bill issued by the opposite parties. But it was the duty of the opposite party to find out any unauthorised extension, even the unit was running 2 Kms. from the office of the opposite party. The complainant was using the electricity as if it was legal. So we think that the opposite party may give instalment facility for the payment of the same.
Hence the petition dismissed with a direction to the opposite party to give 10 monthly instalments to pay the bill issued by the opposite party as Ext. P3. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of October 2010
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - James
On the side of Opposite Parties :
DW1 - Arun.G.C.
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Carbon copy of Site Mahazar prepared by Arun.G.C, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Vannappuram
Ext.P2 - Bill dated 24.06.2010 for Rs.18,200/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.P3 - Final bill dated 13.07.2010 for Rs.18,200/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.P4 - Photocopy of letter No.L/2283/00/K.dis dated 8.11.2000 issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Idukki, Cheruthony
Ext.P5 - Photocopy of bill dated 15.07.2010 for Rs.19,585/-
Ext.P6 - Photocopy of SSI Registration Certificate
Ext.P7 - Bill dated 14.11.2009 for Rs.587/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.P8 - Bill dated 7.09.2010 for Rs.129/- issued by the opposite party for Consumer No.62, Varkey Devasia
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Ist opposite party's Notice dated 24.06.2010 addressed to the complainant
Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Ist opposite party's Notice dated 13.07.2010 addressed to the complainant
