SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for quashing the Electricity bill ,compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is running an Ice plant in the name and style Coastal Ice Products at Vaddy, Kollam. He is a consumer of the opp.party with consumer No.3926 LT IV Tariff of Electrical Section Olayil, Kollam. On 10.5.1996 Anti Power Theft Squad conducted a surprise inspection at the premises of the complainant and found that the CT Connection is not functioning and also noted that the total load connected to the system was 45 KW. whereas the authorized sanctioned load is only for 42 KW. So an invoice for Rs.43,720/- was issued to the complainant towards assessment of energy charges for the previous 10 months and penal charges for using unauthorized additional load of 3 KW. The complainant challenged the bill and filed a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam. The suit was dismissed and the complainant filed an appeal as Appeal No.96/2001 before the District Court, Kollam and the judgement of the Munsiff’s Court and the invoice were setaside and directed the complainant to file application before the Electrical Inspector to take decision about the disputes. Accordingly to the complainant filed an application before the Electrical Inspector, Kollam who passed an order on 27.10.2006. The Electrical Inspector estimated the consumption for the period of 6 months from January 1996 to June 1996 instead of estimate for 10 months as done by the APT Squad It was further decided that the missed unit comes to 17642 units and that 45 KW of connected load detected by the APTS on 5.10.2006 is well within the limit of allocated 70 HP therefore penal charges is not legally binding to the complainant. The complainant now received the revised bill with covering letter charging a sum of Rs.270/- for the unauthorized load of 3 KW, Rs. 17642/- being charges for the consumption of electricity for 6 months, Rs.1764/-towards electricity duty and Rs.48403/- as miscellaneous charges. The bill is illegal and against the decision of the Electrical Inspector, Kollam The complainant is not liable to pay the said amount in the light of the decision of the Electrical Inspector. The action of the opp.parties amounts to deficiency in service. The file is issued in violation of the order of the District Court, Kollam and Electrical Inspector. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is against the judgement passed by the 3rd Additional District Court, Kollam and the order of Electrical Inspector Kollam. This Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter which was decided by the DistrictCourt. The complainant has approached the Forum suppressing material facts. The complainant is not the registered consumer of the opp.party, and the opp.parties are not aware of the Power of attorney executed by Sunno Fernandez in favour of the complainant as the same is not produced. Therefore the complaint has no locus standi to file this complaint. The averments in para 3 of the complaint are not fully correct. It is admitted that the APTS inspected the premises of the complainant on 5.10.2996 and found many irregularities in using electrical energy. It was also noticed that there was unauthorized use of additional load of 3 KW. Based on the report of the APTS a short assessment bill for Rs. 43,720/- for the period from 1/96 to 10/96 was issued for use of unauthorized additional load. The suit filed by the complainant before the Munisiff Court Kollam was dismissed on 3.10.2000 and the District Court on the basis of appeal filed by the complainant directed complainant to file application before the Electrical Inspector within 15 days to assess the correct quantity of energy supplied through the meter. The Electrical Inspector directed the opp.party to revise the bill for 6 months from 1/96 to 6/96 for 17,642/- units. The averments in part 5 are not fully correct. The decision of Electrical Inspector is to revise the bill limiting the period of 6 months and assessed the unrecorded portion of Electrical Energy as 17642 units and the unauthorized load of 3 KW as authorized load. The averments in para 6 are also false. The Electrical Inspector, Kollam has admitted all the observations pointed out in the inspection conducted on 5.10.1996 by the APTS unit. The period of reassessment is limited to 6 months only and additional load is treated as authorized load. The 2nd opp.party has issued the bill as per the decision of the Electrical Inspector The complainant is liable to pay the surcharge amount from the date of issue of original bill. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 and P2 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Points 1 and 2 The case of the complainant is that the APTS inspected the premises of the complainant on 10.5.1996 and alleging that the energy meter installed there was not functioning and that the consumer is using an additional connected load of 3KW after replacing the faulty meter an invoice for Rs.43,720/- was issued to the consumer taking 10 months average consumption and dissatisfied with the short assessment of energy for the previous 10 months and imposing of penal charges alleging use of additional load of 3 KW unauthorisedly he filed a complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer concerned and since he did not take any action filed a suit before the Munsiffs Court, Kollam which was dismissed against which he filed. As No.96/01 which was allowed quashing the invoice and directing the complainant to file an application before the Electrical Inspector, Kollam. Accordingly he filed an application before the Electrical Inspector, Kollam who after hearing both sides passed Ext.P1 order directing the opp.parties to issue revised bill on the basis of the observations in Ext.P1 and accordingly Ext.P2 was issued. The definite case of the complainant is that Ext.P2 is issued not in accordance with the direction in Ext.P1. The direction in Ext.P1 is to issue revised bill for 17642 units which is 50% of the recorded energy for six months from January, 96 to June 96 based on the tariff prevailing in January 1996. It was also observed that there is no unauthorized use of 3KW load. Ext.P2, the revised bill alleged to have been issued in accordance with the direction in Ext.P1. shows that a sum of Rs.270/- has been charged for unauthorized load of 3 KW, Rs.17, 642/- being the charges for consumption of electrical energy, Rs.1764/- being duty and Rs.48,403/- being the surcharge. According to the complainant the inclusion of Rs.270/-, Rs. 1764/- and Rs.48,403/- are against Ext.P1 order of Electrical Inspector and therefore he is not bound to pay the amount as per Ext.P2. DW.1 is the Engineer who issued Ext.P2. He has admitted in cross examination that there is no direction in Ext.P1 to realize surcharge. According to DW.1 surcharge was included in Ext.P2 as there was no prohibition in Ext.P1 in realizing the same He would further admit that, there is no order in Ext.P1 to realize the charges. for additional load of 3 KW and that the District Court has also quashed the charges for 3 KW load. When that be the position no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the inclusion of the above sums in Ext.P2. As argued by the complainant the conduct of DW.1 in including the above Ext.P2 is deficiency in service. It is a case where In a consumer who is paying electricity charges regularly has been drawn for unnecessary litigation for more than 10 year before various Forums when the Electrical Inspector says that there is no additional load of 3 KW since the complaint is permitted 70 HP it cannot be believed that APTS officials are ignorant about this fact. So it is obvious that the APTS officials have alleged use of extra load fully knowing that there is no additional load which is unfair trade practice. It goes without saying that the concerned Electrical Inspector is the competent authority to decide the disputes regarding faulty meters and the finding of the electrical Inspector is binding on the parties. Therefore the opp.parties are bound to issue revised bill only in accordance with Ext.P1. A perusal of the materials produced and the evidence of DW.1 even a layman can say that Ext.P2 is not in accordance with Ext.P1 order. The conduct of the opp.parties in issuing Ext.P2 ignoring Ext.P1 is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed quashing Ext.P2 bill and directing the opp.parties to revise the bill including Rs.17,642/- being charges for consumption for 6 months and Electricity duty of Rs.1761/- alone. The opp.parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant: PW.1. Suno Fernandex List of documents for the complainant P1. – Proceedings cum order P2. – Revised bill and Letter List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1 Ambika Kumari. | 
