By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed is against the order of the Opposite Parties for the bill penalizing the Complainant alleging mis use of tariff in electric connection. The Complainant filed I.A No.149/2009 for the joint trial of the complaints No. CC 20/2009 and 21/2009 and the petition allowed on 23.4.2009.

C.C. No. 20/2009

2. The sum up of the complaint filed by the Complainant is as follows:- The Complainant is a procurator of diocese of Sulthan Bathery. In consumer No.154 in Sulthan Bathery East the electricity connection has been enjoyed for four years by the Catholic Diocese of Sulthan Bathery. An additional work was completed in March 2008 attached to the earlier premise. The revised plan and estimate of the same connection was not submitted for approval of the Opposite Party. The extended area was not used for the purpose and inauguration of the same was not effected. The Anti Power Theft squad of K.S.E.B made a surprise visit and alleged detection of unauthorised additional load and penal bill of Rs.89,311/- was issued to the Complainant. The extension work was completed and it was not in use for the purpose. On receiving the penal bill of Rs.89,311/- the Complainant filed an appeal before the Assistant Executive Engineer which was later dismissed and subsequently an appeal was filed before the Deputy Chief Engineer, K.S.E.B at Kalpetta and it was also dismissed. The appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer was filed on depositing ½ of the amount. The bill issued alleging mis use of tariff and unauthorised addition load in the diocese of Sulthan Bathery is absolutely a deficiency in service. The bill issued to the diocese Sulthan Bathery is to be canceled and the Complainant is to be given a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with cost and Rs.1,500/-. The ½ of the amount deposited at the time of filing the appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Rs.44,655/- is also to be refunded with interest at the rate of 12%.

3. The Opposite Parties filed version in short it is as follows:- The surprise inspection to the consumer No.154 and 6640 of Sulthan Bathery East section was on 18.4.08 and the mis use of tariff was detected. The site mahazar was prepared and which was counter signed by Fr. Joseph Kannankulam who was present at the time of inspection. The connection was in 1A tariff and the same was used for the purpose under 6 A for which a higher tariff is applicable. The connected load in the premises is 29 KW. The reassessment for the last 18 month from the date of inspection was considered and a bill was issued for Rs.89,311/- deducting current charges already paid by the consumer. The appeal was preferred before the Assistant Executive Engineer and thereafter on dismissal an another appeal filed before Deputy Chief Engineer on deposit of half of the amount assessed both the appeal were dismissed the bill issued the Complainant is sustainable. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The act of the Opposite Parties are in compliance of the provisions. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

C.C. No. 21/2009

4. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a consumer of electricity Connection in No.6640 of Sulthan Bathery East. The tariff assigned for the connection is in agricultural purpose the energy was to be used only for the agricultural purpose. The 1^st Opposite Party made a surprise inspection and charge of mis use of tariff. The Complainant was imposed of an additional bill of Rs.33,068/- for the mis use of connection. The Complainant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Executive Engineer against the order of the 1^st Opposite Party on dismissal of the appeal. The Complainant filed an appeal before Deputy Chief Engineer, K.S.E.B Kalpetta depositing half of the amount penalized. The issuance of additional bill alleging mis use of agricultural connection is absolutely a deficiency in service. The consumption of electricity by the Complainant was not in contravention of the alloted tariff. There may be an order to cancel the additional bill dated 23.4.2008 and Opposite Parties may also to be directed to refund Rs.16,534/- already deposited towards the disputed bill amount with interest at the rate of 12% till the realization of the amount. The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,500/-

5. The version in brief filed by the Opposite Parties are as follows:- The service connection to 'Dharmapeedam' of Catholic Diocese of Sulthan Bathery under LT5 (Agricultural tariff) is admitted by the Opposite Party. The Anti Power Theft Squad on inspection dated 18.4.2008 detected the mis use of tariff. The service connection No. 6640 was given to the same premises for agricultural purpose alone. The energy supplied in the consumer No. 6640 was also used for supply of water to the premises in consumer No.154 which was in IA tariff. The consumer was reassessed for the last 18 months from the date of inspection and a bill dated 23.4.2008 of Rs.33,068/- was issued to the Complainant. The mis use of energy provided in agricultural tariff for domestic purpose was penalized empowered by the provisions. The appeal filed by the Complainant before the Assistant Executive Engineer and later before the Deputy Chief Engineer were dismissed. For filing appeal before the Executive Engineer, the Complainant deposited the half of the bill amount towards the mis use of tariff. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.

6. The points in consideration are:-

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in the issuance of the bill?

2. Relief and cost.

7. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts.A1 to A4, C1 and X1 series (2 sets) are the documents produced for the Complainants. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit inter alia contenting allegation of the Complainant. Exts.B1 to B10 are the documents marked. The contention of the Complainant is that the electricity connection in to the 'Dharmapeedam' are in consumer Nos. 154 and 6640. The consumer No. 154 was in 1 A

tariff and the consumer No.6640 was in agricultural tariff. On inspection of the Anti Power Theft Squad mahazar was prepared the Complainant was issued a bill of Rs.89,311/- in one category and an another bill of Rs.33,068/- including the OYEC amount in another category was issued to the Complainant. Ext.X1 series filed in 2 sets is signed by Fr. Joseph, Kannankulam with the endorsement that the site mahazar is accepted and the received. The connection load detailed in Ext.X1 series are already accepted by Complainant. It is also admitted by the Complainant that the consumer No.154, the connected load was enhanced as a result of the renovation works. It is seen from documents produced and from the averment in the complaint that the Complainant was yet to apply for the enhancement of the connected load. Exts.C1 is the Commission Report, the total connected load in consumer No.154 is 29.24 KW. In the commission report it is also seen that the premises of the Complainant is having two consumer number. The consumer No.6640 which is in agricultural tariff. The supply of water from the 10 HP motor pump set in consumer No.6640 is also supplied to the tank in the main building for distribution of water. The power supplied for agricultural purpose is mis used for other purposes. The change of 1 A tariff later to 6 A on the report of inspection. Ext.B10 is the detail meter reading of the consumer No.154. The bills issued to the Complainant includes the penal charges for 18 months starting from 12/06 to 4/08. According to the Opposite Party the reassessment for a period of 18 months is considered on detecting abrupt jump in the consumption of energy supplied for domestic purpose. The consumption of energy in 10/06 was 400 similarly the bill issued in 8/06 was showing the consumption of 63 units. There is sudden jump in the consumption of energy from 12/06 onwards. The reassessment of the Opposite Party in the issuance of the bill for a period of 18 months is based on reasons. The Electricity (Amendment) Act notified in 12^th June 2007 in section 126 (5) is amended as such if the assessing Officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place the assessment shall be for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity as taken place and if , how ever, the period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding date of inspection. In the instant case there is considerable hike in consumption of electricity which the assessing officer could come to the conclusion of the period of unauthorised use of electricity. The reassessment for a period of 18 months cannot be found unreasonable. The Opposite Party demanded the bill amount deducting the payment already made by the Complainant. The consumer No.6640 the bill dated 23.4.2008 the Opposite Party reassessed charges for a period of 18 months for 8 KW including the amount of OYEC. The fixed charges for 8 KW cannot be considered unreasonable or anything illegal. According to the amendment notified on 12^th June 2007 Section 126 (6) instead of 1 ½ times it is substituted by twice.The penalization twice the some of fixed charge found to be in compligance of the provisions. It is seen from the materials records that the Complainant remitted 50% of the amount towards the disputed bills at the time of filing appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer. We are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service and points are found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice. dt:23.04.2008.

A2. Receipt. dt:19.07.2008.

A3. Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice. dt:23.04.2008.

A4. Receipt. dt:11.08.2008.

C1. Commission Report.

X1 series (2 sets) Site Mahazar. dt:18.04.2008.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Site Mahazar. dt:18.04.2008.

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:18.04.2008.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:18.04.2008.

B4. Copy of Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice. dt:23.04.2008.

B5. Copy of Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice. dt:23.04.2008.

B6. Copy of Appeal filed by the Complainant to the

Asst. Executive Engineer, Sulthan Bathery. dt:03.05.2008.

B7. Copy of the Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. dt:31.10.2008.

B8. Copy of Appeal filed by the Complainant to the

Asst. Executive Engineer, Sulthan Bathery. dt:03.05.2008.

B9. Copy of the Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. dt:31.10.2008.

B10 (3 sheets) Copy of the Meter Reading Register.