PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2011
Filed on : 27-08-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 471/2011
Between
C.P. Wilson, : Complainant
Chakkumpeedika house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Vazhakkulam P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzya)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. The Secretary, : Opposite parties
Kerala State Electricity Board, (By Adv. R. Srinath,
Vydhuthy Bhavan, Pattom, PB Asokan & George C.
Thiruvanthapuram-695 004. Varghese, XL/4664,
Banerji road, Ernakulam,
Kochi-682 031.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Section,
Kallorkadu-686 668,
Muvattupuzha.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:
The complainant is a LT-7A category consumer of electricity under the second opposite party. His consumer No. is 9727.
On 01-07-2011 a bill for Rs. 44,100/- was issued to the complainant. The reason given is that instead of 3 phase connection 9 KW connected load given for single phase. Against which a complaint was submitted before the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter another bill dated 11-08-2011 for Rs. 32,850/- was served on the complainant accompanied by a notice stating that unauthorized load detected in 6/2005. The complainant is not liable to pay the above said Rs. 32,850/- since the present demand raised by the opposite party is barred by limitation as per the Regulation 18(8) of the Kerala electricity Supply Code 2005. Moreover the complainant has been remitting the electricity charges promptly. Hence the complainant seeking direction against the opposite party to set aside the impugned bill and to pay costs of the proceedings.
2. The Version of the opposite parties.
The complainant was having a connected load of 2kw in single phase. The complainant was served with a bill dated 01-07-2011 for Rs. 44,100/-. During 5/2005 an inspection was conducted in the premises of the complainant and an unauthorized additional load of 7kw was detected. The complainant was served a penal bill for Rs. 5,400/- during May 2,005. And he had remitted the said amount but did not regularize the unauthorized load and continued its usage. On Audit by the Accountant General, Kerala after examining the bill documents it was found that the complainant was continuing to enjoy the unauthorized load. As per Regulation 4(5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005 the maximum connected load that can be allowed is 240 V supply (single phase)is 5KW. The complainant should have enjoyed the 9KW load only through the three phase connection. In the said circumstance the consumer was served with a short assessment bill for Rs. 32,850/-. The complainant is liable to pay the bill of Rs. 32,850/-. The complainant had been undercharged and in such case as per Regulation 24(5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2005, the Licensee can recover the undercharged amount from the consumer by issuing a bill. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. The complainant produced four documents which were marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The opposite parties produced one document which was marked as Exts. B1. Counsel on both sides were heard.
4. The following points deserve our attention :
i. Whether the impugned bill is justified in law?
ii. What are the reliefs, if any?
5. Point Nos. i) and ii) :- Ext. A1 is the copy of bill dated 01-07-2011, A2 is the copy of calculation. Ext. A3 is the copy of letter and A4 series are the copy of bill dated 18-08-2011 and copy of calculation issued by the 2nd opposite party. The contention of the complainant is that the unauthorized connected load was detected in the year 2005. Ext. A4 calculation report shows that authorized load dictated in 2005. It goes to show that the complainant is called upon to pay the surcharge due from 2005 onwards.
6. The opposite parties contented that the bill in question is only a short assessment bill. They find shelter under Regulation 24 (5) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code which authorizes the Board as licensee to levy the undercharged consumption by issuing bill. We are not to accept the contentions because Regulation 18 (8) covers recovery of any amount beyond the period of two years from the due date. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Sunderdas V KSEB 2009 (1) KHC. In which it is specifically stated that “No doubt, I am not here considering the case where a bill is issued after an inordinate delay where probably it could be contended that it is arbitrary”. The said decision is not applicable in this case since the case in hand is that the bill was issued on the basis of an inspection conducted. Therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain the levy of the amount specified in the impugned Ext. A4 series (1) bill dt. 11-08-2011. However, the complainant is at liberty to take steps to get the unauthorized connected load regularized
8. In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. We set aside Ext. A4 series (i) bill dated 11-08-2011
ii. The complainant shall take immediate steps to regularize the
unauthorized connected load failing which the opposite party is at liberty to take appropriate action as per norms.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2011
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Demand notice dt. 01-07-2011
A2 : Calculation statement
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 06-07-2011
A4 : Copy of demand notice
dt. 11-08-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter dt. 07-07-2011
