By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:- The gist of the case is as follows. The complainant is the proprietor of Nokia Care,Kalpetta and is the consumer of consumer No.11540.The connection stands in the name of Sri. Muhammed Jamal,secretary, W.M .O, from whom the complainant obtained the room for lease. The income from the centre is the only source of livelihood of the complainant. The complainant is regularly paying the bills under tariff .No.L.T7A of Kalpetta section.
2. On 5.12.2008 the Sub Engineer of the opposite party visited the premises and obtained a signature on a blank paper. The Sub Engineer asked the complainant to file a petition to enhance the connected load in consumer No.11540, which was complied with by the complainant under protest. The complainant received a bill on 3.1.09 in which the fixed charge was stated as Rs.2,480 and energy charge Rs.11,291/- and duty as Rs1,121/-the total being Rs.14,892/-. This bill was paid by the complainant on 15.1.09.Opposite party no.1 also demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-as ACD which also was paid under protest on 27.1.2009.
3. Again the 1st Opposite Party issued a bill on 17.2.2007 by which the Complainant was ordered to pay Rs.9,142/- and in that bill, it was shown that the tariff was changed to LT 7B. On getting the bill, the Complainant approached the officer of 1st Opposite Party and he made some corrections and the Complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,240/-. The Sub Engineer has prepared the site mahazar without proper inspection on 05.12.2008 and issued bills dated 03.01.2009, 17.02.2009 and changed the tariff to LT 7B without being heard. So, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Complainant. So, the Complainant is praying for an order directing the Opposite Parties to withdraw the additional bills for Rs. 14,892/- and 8,240/-. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
4. The Opposite Parties filed version and stated that the connection No.4540 was effected in the name of Mr. Muhammed Jamal, Secretary, Wayanad Muslim Orphanage under VII B tariff, with registered connected load of 560 W. An inspection was conducted by the Regional Audit Officer of the Opposite Parties at the premises of consumer on 5.12.2008 and the Sub Engineer prepared a site mahazar stating the facts revealed in the inspection, it was revealed that the consumer is using a connected load of 2750 W instead of 560 W. Under VII B tariff, the consumer is not allowed to have a connected load above 1 KW. If the connected load exceeds 1 KW the consumer is legally bound to change the tariff to VII A for which a higher rate is applicable. In order to change the tariff, the Consumer has to submit an application to the Opposite Parties. In this case, without getting the approval of the Opposite parties, the Complainant has connected additional load to an extent of 2 KW which is to be treated as unauthorised additional load. Hence the consumer was penalized and reassessed for a period of one year back as per the provision of the Electricity Act. The penalization will continue till the consumer regularize the connection as per the provisions of the Electricity Act.
5. The bill for Rs.14,892/- was arrived by calculating the fixed charge, energy charges, duty, interest and other applicable charges including two times penalization. The said bill is arrived after deducting the electricity charges already paid by the consumer. 6. The signature of the Complainant was obtained on the site mahazar as an acknowledgment for the receipt of the copy of it. The story of blank paper is not correct. After the inspection the Complainant preferred an application to regularize the additional caution deposit on 27.1.2009. The bill issued to the Complainant will cover penalization till 26.1.2009. But mistakenly when the bill dated 17.2.2009 was issued under VII A, it included penalization till 17.2.2009. In fact penalization is only till 26.1.2009. So correction was made on the bill. The tariff applicable to the Complainant is now LT VII A tariff. Therefore the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.
7. The Complainant was examined as PW1, documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A5 on the part of the Complainant. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the Opposite Parties as OPW1 and OPW2. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the Opposite Parties. 8. The matters to be decided are:- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?
9. Point No.1:- Here, the inspection by the Opposite Parties at the premises of the Complainant and the mahazar prepared on the basis of that inspection are proved. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that there is no unauthorised additional load. The Complainant has even remitted the additional caution deposit for regularising the additional load. But the bill issued by the Opposite Party is arbitrary. Section 50 (5) (6) of the Kerala State Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply 2005 direct that in case of unauthorised additional load, the penal assessment shall be made at a rate equal to 1 ½ times the tariff applicable for the relevant category. As per Sub section (5) of Section 50, assessment shall be made for 6 months immediately preceding the inspection . Hence as shown on Exts. A3 and A4 penal assessment is done at the rate of 2 times and for a period of one year. This is not proper and is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties to issue such a bill against the provisions of law. Hence, the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Parties.
10. Point No.2:- As the bills issued by the Opposite Parties are against the provisions of law, the Complainant is entitled to get it corrected. Therefore, the complaint is partly allowed and the bills Exts. A3 and A4 are quashed. The Opposite Parties are directed to issue fresh bills penalizing the Complainant at the rate of 1 ½ times the tariff and for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the inspection. No order as to cost or compensation. The excess bill amount remitted by the Complainant is to be adjusted towards the future electricity bills of the Complainant. The order is to be complied within 30 days of the receipt of this order . No order as to cost or compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th January 2010.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
A P P E N D I X Witnesses for the Complainant: PW1. Faisal Ammengara Complainant. Witnesses for the Opposite Party: OPW1. Sudheesh. Sub Engineer, K.S.E.B. OPW2. Santhosh. B. Senior Superintendent, K.S.E.B. Exhibits for the Complainant: A1. Copy of Receipt dt:27.01.2009. A2. Receipt. dt:15.01.2009. A3. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt: 17.02.2009. A4. Demand and Disconnection Notice. dt: 03.01.2009. A5. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:05.12.2008.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party: B1. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:05.12.2008. B2.(1 page) Copy of Consumer's Personal Deposit Register. | 
