KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.977/04 JUDGMENT DATED.23.07.08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Asst.Ex.Engineer, K.S.E.B., Electrical Major Section, Nattakom, Kottayam. 2. The Secretary, K.S.E.B., Trivandrum. : APPELLANTS (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair) Vs The Citizens Club, Rep. by its Secretary, Francis Jacob.K, M.C.Road, Kodimatha, : RESPONDENT Kottayam. (Kallambalam S.Sreekumar) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER By the order dated.8.10.04 in OP.No.229/02 of CDRF, Kottayam the opposite parties are under directions to cancel Ext.A1 bill for Rs.17,638/- and to issue regular bill without any penal charges for the actual consumption which the consumer is liable to pay. The opposite parties are also directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is preferred by the opposite parties. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he was a consumer of the opposite parties and that the demand notice for Rs.17,638/- issued was illegal and unsustainable. The further case of the complainant is that he had no arrears to be paid to the opposite parties and the bill was issued without any basis and it was prayed before the Forum that the bill issued be set aside/quashed with costs. 3. The opposite parties in their version submitted that there was an additional load of 6KW in the premises of the complainant which was detected on an inspection by the Kerala State Electricity Board’s officials and that as the additional load was unauthorized the bill was issued as per clause 42(d) of the conditions of supply. It was also submitted that the complainant was liable to pay the amount and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the affidavits of the petitioner and the first opposite party. Exts.A1 to A4 and Ext.B1 were marked. The Commissioner appointed by the Forum who submitted his report was marked as Ext.C1. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the Forum has gone wrong in directing the appellants to cancel Ext.A1 bill which was issued as per clause 42(d) of the consumes of supply consequent to the detection of unauthorized additional load in the premises of the complainant. He has also submitted that the penal bill was issued for the unauthorized additional load and the consumption for the previous 6 months in order to discourage consumers from enhancing their connected load without prior sanction of the Kerala State Electricity Board. It was also argued by the counsel that if the consumers are encouraged to enhance the connected load unauthorisedly that will collapse the entire system of production and distribution of electricity and in such a circumstance the Forum ought to have to dismissed the complaint. It is also his case that the findings of the Forum that the site mahazar has no evidentiary value is unsustainable as it is to be noted that the Manager of the complainant’s clerk has signed in the mahazar itself. In such a circumstance it is argued by the learned counsel that the appeal is to be allowed setting aside the order of the Forum below. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the Forum that the bill for Rs.17,638/- was issued without any basis and there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. He also argued that the opposite parties however managed to get the signed paper from the Manager of the complainant clerk wherein the site mahazar was later created as if he was a witness of the site mahazar. Raising the above contentions he pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also on going through the case records we find that the Kerala State Electricity Board has conducted the inspection on 20.4.02 and has recorded the then existing connected load. It is also noted that P.M.Mathew the Manager of the complainant has signed in the mahazar though it is argued that in the blank paper the signature was obtained by the opposite parties which was manipulated to be the site mahazar produced and marked as Ext.A3/B1. It is also to be found that the Commissioner who was appointed by the Forum had also ascertained that there was a connected load of 9567W in the premises of the complainant. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the signature was obtained in the blank paper, on a perusal of the document it can be presumed that the details were not written after obtaining the signature of the witness. We are not inclined to accept the said contention that the mahazar was manipulated. 9. On a close study of the bill dated.22.4.02 which is produced and marked as Ext.A1 it is seen that the unauthorized additional load of 6KW had been billed at 3 times for 6 months at the rate applicable. It is also seen that the energy recorded through the meter was also charged at 3 times for 6 months. This action of the opposite parties in penalizing the consumer by changing 3 times again cannot be supported as there is no allegation for the opposite parties that the complainant had either consumed the electrical energy for some other purpose or that there was tampering in the meter. It is the considered view of this Commission that the complainant cannot be put to double jeopardy. The learned counsel for the appellants would argue that it is to discourage the enhancement of connected load in the premises without permission such action is followed by the opposite parties by charging 3 times for 6 months for the energy already charged/consumed by the complainant. We are of the opinion that the clause 42(d) empowers the opposite parties/Kerala State Electricity Board to charge at 3 times the rate applicable to the respective tariff or the previous period of 6 months from the date of detection of misuse only if the complainant/consumer has misused the energy for higher tariff. In the instant case it is to be noted that the complainant was remitting charges at the higher tariff that is LT VII (A) though he would argue that he is liable to be charged only under LT VI (B). Hence the view taken by the appellants opposite parties that the complainant has misused the energy cannot be upheld though it can be seen that they have increased the connected load which is discernible from Exts.A4/B1/C1. Ext.C1 would also show that the complainant has a connected load of 10KW and it is to be noted that the Commissioner has inspected the premises with the knowledge of the complainant himself by which he would have taken appropriate action to disconnect/remove some of the unwanted connections. Hence in our view Ext.B1 is sufficient proof to come of the conclusion that the complainant had additional load of 6KW and in such a circumstance that part of the bill where the penal charges for the unauthorized additional load is charged can only be uphold. In the result the appeal is allowed in part order with the modifications as indicated above. Thereby the appellants/opposite parties are directed to issue a fresh bill in the place of Ext.A1 towards penal charges for the unauthorized additional load of 6KW at 3 times the rate applicable for 6 months. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER R.AV
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
