Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/488

THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE KADUTHURUTHI CO OPERATIVE HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

B SAKTHIDARAN NAIR

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.488/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 30/03/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.43/2010 dt.31/7/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam)

  

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS              :        MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.  The Secretary, Kerala State

 Electricity Board, Pattom P.O.,

•  

 

2.  The Assistant Executive Engineer,

 Electricity Section, Kaduthuruthi P.O.,

 Kottayam-686 604.

(By Adv:  B. Sakthidharan Nair)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            The Kaduthuruthy Co-operative Hospital Ltd.,

No.K.379, Kaduthuruthy P.O., Kottayam-686 604.

(By Adv:  Emmanual Thomas)  

                

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          The opposite parties are the appellants herein who preferred the appeal against the order in C.C.No.43/2010 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The respondent is the complainant.

          2.  The complainant is a charitable co-operative hospital having Consumer No.21311 who availed electric connection under VI (B) tariff of the opposite party.  In order to install an X-ray with 100 MA capacity the complainant applied for regularization of electricity connection in August 2006. A notice was issued to the complainant to inform the present connected load and the sanction was given for installation on 26/10/2006.   As per the order the connected load was 8 KW.  On 28/2/2009 the opposite parties issued a notice to remit Rs.27,458/- as security deposit for additional load.  The 2^nd opposite party on 30/10/2009 inspected the premises and prepared a mahazar and calculated the use of electrical energy as 23071. It is alleged in the complaint that the mahazar showing the penal assessment and unauthorized load is not correct.  On 31/10/2009 a bill for an amount of Rs.64,000/- as provisional assessment was issued.  A complaint was filed by the complainant as C.C.No.358/09 wherein the opposite parties were directed to hear the objection of the complainant before issuing the provisional bill.  Thereafter on 4/1/2010 the opposite party without considering or properly hearing the complainant, issued the final bill.  This act of the opposite party fixing the connected load amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite parties  also issued notice dated 22/2/2010 to the complainant stating that failure to remit the amount of Rs.64,000/- will lead to disconnection of electricity connection.  It is stated in the complaint that the disconnection of electricity certainly will stop the functioning of the hospital which is running under the Charitable               co-operative Sector.  The complaint is filed to set-aside the bill for Rs.64,000/- to assess connected load, to re-fix the amount and also for compensation and cost.

          3.  The opposite parties filed version contending that in C.C.No.358/09 filed before the Consumer Forum wherein the complainant had not filed any objection against the provisional assessment.  It is also contended that the complainant had not filed any appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer who is the appeal authority in the present case.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party having consumer No.21311 under Tariff LT VI(B), the concessional tariff, for hospitals registered under Charitable Institutions Act.  The registered connected load as per the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party was 10000 watts. The security deposit became insufficient as the consumption increased and the deposit amount increased on 28/2/2009 to Rs.27,458/-.  The increase in consumption is an indicator of additional connected load and vice versa.  During inspection conducted on 30/10/2009 by the Inspection Squad it was found out that the complainant was having connected power load without the permission of the opposite party.  During inspection it was found out that the total connected load is 23071 watts and a site mahazar was prepared to that effect.  The unauthorized connected load is a clear violation of bilateral agreement and it is liable to be penalized under the Electricity Act 2003.  The bill was issued under section 126 of the Act for Rs.64,000/-.  If there is any objection it is to be filed with material proof against provisional assessment.  The complainant had not filed any objection to substantiate that there had any unauthorized load connected for the past one year.  The objection to the provisional assessment is to be made before the Appeal Authority as envisaged under section 127 of the Electricity Act.  The complainant had not filed any appeal before the Appellate Authority ie. Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kottayam, in this case.  It is also contended that the complainant was instructed to regularize connected load on 25/01/2005 and on 16/01/2006.  But this was not complied by the complainant by remitting the required fees.  The complainant has no case that he had not used additional load.  As per Section 126 of the Act proposes assessment at two times of fixed charges and proportionate energy charges for the entire period  during which the UAL remains connected.

          4.  The evidence consists of proof affidavit, Exbts.A1 to A10 and Exbt.B1 to B10 were marked to substantiate the case of the parties. 

5.  The counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant is a co-operative hospital and the allotted electrical connection was for 10000 watts in 1997.  In 2006 the respondent expressed the desire to instal  X-ray unit and the additional load was connected and a deposit of Rs.27,458/- was remitted by the complainant.  Thereafter on 30/10/2009 on an inspection conducted by the officials of appellant found out that the respondent is having unauthorized connected load of 23071 watts and prepared a site mahazar. The site mahazar was signed by the respondent/complainant.  As per the connected load the respondent is liable to remit an amount of Rs.64,000/- as electricity charges for the unauthorized connected load for the last one year.  Exbt: B1 evidences that the appellant had already issued notice for remittance of the unauthorized electricity charges.  The provisional assessment was not challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority ie. Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle and the respondent is bound to pay the amount.  The bill was issued under Section 126 of the electricity Act and if any objection regarding the assessment it is to be pleaded before the Deputy Chief Engineer under Section 127 of the Electricity Act which was not done in this case by the complainant.  There is no evidence on record to prove whether the X-ray installation was done after getting sanction.  The respondent had not done anything to regularize the unauthorized connection.  The excess connected load comes under unauthorized connected load and misuse of electricity.  It is argued that setting aside of the bill by the Forum Below is misuse of judicial function.  Being a co-operative hospital the electricity connection was charged under LTVI(B).  The lack of regularization of unauthorized connection leads to issuance of penalty and the respondent is also liable to pay the penal charges.  Hence the order of the Forum Below is only to set-aside.

          6.  Heard the counsel in detail and gone through the documents.  It is an undisputed fact that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant applied for additional connected load for installation of X-ray unit in August 2006.  The complainant installed the excess load and the connected load as on that date of application was 8 KW.  The opposite parties directed the complainant to inform the present connected load during the time of the completion report.  The communication dated 16/01/2006 was issued by the opposite parties.  Thereafter on 28/2/2009 the opposite parties issued a demand notice to pay Rs.27,458/- as security deposit for the additional connected load.  As per bill dated 21/03/2009 the connected load shown as 10000 watts. On inspection conducted on 31/10/2009 by the inspection squad it is reported in site mahazar that the complainant is using an additional connected load of 23071 watts.  The additional connected load is 23071.  The complainant was paying the bill for 10000 watts and the additional bill issued is for penal assessment under Section 126 of electricity act and penal charges for UAL for 12 months which comes to Rs.64,000/-.  There is no case for the complainant that the complainant paid for additional connected load of 13071.  The appellants are entitled to collect for the unauthorized connected load and the penal charges calculated for 12 months only.  Despite the notice given on 16/01/2006 to inform the connected load as on that day was not complied by the complainant and nothing is on evidence to show that the complainant informed the connected load till 2009.  Hence we find that the respondent is liable to pay the bill issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.  The Forum Below went wrong in setting aside the bill issued to the respondent.

          In the result, appeal is allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

 

 A. RADHA             :                MEMBER

 

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :    MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD,   

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.488/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 30/03/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.