KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
F.A.No.45/06
JUDGMENT DATED : 08.01.2010
PRESENT:-
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SHRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
P.T.Mathew,
Pazhayidathu House, : APPELLANT
Kudayathoor.P.O.,
Kolapra, Thodupuzha.
(By Advs.Sri.K.R.Haridas & Vinu.V.Gopal)
Vs
1. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydhyuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, : RESPONDENTS
KSEB, Moolamattam Division,
Thodupuzha, Idukki.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Electrical Section,
Distribution, Moolamattam.P.O.,
Idukki.
(By Adv.Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September 2005 of the CDRF, Idukki in O.P No. 283/2004. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents are the opposite parties in the said O.P. 283/2004 filed for getting P1 bill dated 09.11.2004 for Rs. 20,057/- cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency in service in issuing the aforesaid additional bill for Rs. 20,057/-. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the additional bill (Ext.P1) was issued for Rs. 20,057/- because of the failure on the part of the complainant to provide required ISI approved capacitors of recommended value. It is further contended that as per the tariff order issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board the consumers who have failed to install ISI approved capacitors of recommended value are bound to pay 20% of the fixed and energy charges more than the scheduled rate. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing P1 bill dated 09.11.04 for Rs. 20,057/-.
2. Before the Forum below PWs 1 and 2 were examined from the side of the complainant. Ext.P1 to P9 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant. From the side of the opposite parties R1 copy of the form of application for supply of electricity dated 19.11.99 was produced and marked. An expert Commissioner was deputed from the Forum below and the expert namely; Electrical Inspector submitted report. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 12th September 2005 dismissing the complainant in O.P. 283/2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.
3. We heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ complainant much relied on C1 Commission report and the tariff order stipulating realization of higher tariff for consumers who have not installed ISI mark approved capacitors of recommended value. He also argued for the position that the complainant has the motors and other electric installations having the total capacity of 39Hp and so he need not install capacitors with rating of 22 KVAR. Thus, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in O.P. 283/04 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents/opposite parties supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He vehemently argued for the position that the electrical installations at the premises of the appellant/complainant were having the capacity of 62Hp and so the complainant has to install capacitors having the rating of 22KVAR. Thus, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
4. The points that arise for considerations are:
1. What is the actual capacity of the electrical installations installed at the premises of the appellant/complainant?
2. Is there occurred any deficiency of services on the part of the respondents/opposite parties in issuing P1 bill dated 09.11.04 for Rs.20,057/-?
3. Is there any substantial ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.09.2005 passed by CDRF, Idukki in O.P.283/2004?
5. Points 1 to 3:- Admittedly, the appellant/complainant is a consumer of KSEB having an industry by name St.Mary’s Saw Mill with Consumer No.1613. The appellant/complainant was served with P1 bill dated 09.11.2004 for Rs. 20,057/-. The aforesaid bill has been challenged in the complaint in O.P. 283/04. A perusal of Ext.P1 bill would show that the said additional bill was issued for the short assessment for the period from January 2003 to July 2003 amounting to Rs.5,161/- and also for assessment on account of the failure to install required capacitors for the period from January 2003 to June 2004 amounting to Rs.14,896/-. Thus, P1 bill is for a total of Rs.20,057/-. It can also be seen that the P1 bill has been issued by treating the total capacity of the connected load at 62 HP and that the installed capacitors were having only the rating of 11 KVAR instead of the required rating of 22KVAR. On the other hand, the appellant/ complainant consumer would allege that connected load is only 39HP. But there is nothing on record to show that the total connected load is only 39HP. It is to be noted at this juncture that the complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he has been remitting electricity charges for the connected load of 62 HP. So, the opposite party KSEB is fully justified in issuing P1 additional bill by treating the connected load at 62HP. The appellant consumer miserably failed in substantiating his case that the connected load is only 39HP.
6. The appellant/consumer has also relied on C1 Commission report. In C1 Commission report, it is categorically reported that the capacitors of the electrical installations at the premises of the complainant could not be calculated or assessed because of the absence of labels on the installations. The Commissioner has also reported that there were only capacitors with the rating of 9KVAR at the time of inspection and another capacitor with 6KVAR was seen not connected. So, as far as the capacitors connected were having only the rating of 9 KVAR. If that be so, the appellant/ complainant failed to follow the instruction in the tariff order issued by KSEB. It is stipulated in the tariff order that for consumers who have not installed ISI approved capacitors of recommended value, the rate applicable will be higher by 20% (both on fixed and energy charges). The aforesaid stipulation in the tariff order would make it clear that the opposite parties KSEB can very well levy a higher tariff for the energy supplied. The opposite parties have claimed higher tariff at the rate of 20% more than the scheduled rate.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant much relied on C1 Commission report and canvassed for the position that the expert Commissioner found the capacitors installed at the premises were having ISI approval. But, at the same time the learned Counsel omitted to read the stipulation regarding the necessity to install ISI approved capacitors of recommended value. The definite case of the opposite parties is that the total required capacitors with the required rating will be 22 KVAR and that the appellant/complainant had only installed capacitors having 11KVAR. If that be so, the opposite parties are justified in issuing P1 additional bill for Rs.20,057/-. The Forum below has rightly negatived the case of the complainant. We do not find any substantial ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below. So, the present appeal deserves dismissal. These points are answered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
Kb.
