DATE OF FILING : 01.07.2009

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.123/2009

Between

Complainant : B.C.Ansari,

Maliyekkal House,

6^th Mile, Chakkupallam P.O,

Kumily,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: P.N.Unni)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhyudhi Bhavan,

Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section,

Vandanmedu,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: C.K.Babu)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant is running an industry in the name and style “Thekkady Agro Exports” at 6^th Mile, Chakkupallom in Kumily. He is having an electric connection with Consumer No.5441/VMD under LT IV industrial tariff. He is also having another electric connection with Consumer No.10313/VMD under LT IA domestic tariff. The first one is for supplying power to the industry and also for factory lighting, the latter for meeting power requirements of the domestic portion in the same premises. The complainant was paying Rs.30,000/- and more at an average every month. The power meter and light meter attached to the industrial connection No.5441/VMD are working. But it is doubted that the meter installed for measuring the domestic consumption under consumer No.10313 is faulty. The industrial connection No.5441/VMD was effected during 1994. The power required for lighting up of the portion of the building where the complainant is residing with family is also availed from the light meter of the industrial connection. The industrial connection is of a higher tariff and the domestic connection is with a lesser tariff. As such the Ist and 2^nd opposite parties had no objection. Later on the advice of the officers, the load for lighting up domestic portion was segregated and new service with Consumer No.10313 under LT IA tariff was connected on 23.06.2004 for the benefit of the complainant. The industrial meter reads by the Sub Engineer every month and invoiced from the office of the 2^nd opposite party. During the first week of February 2007 the meter was read by the Sub Engineer and there was no report of any unauthorised load. On 26.02.2007 and 27.02.2007, the complainant was away from his residence on a business tour. His wife and two school going children were all alone at house. In the evening of 26.02.2007 at about 7 p.m, the supply to the domestic connection in the premises failed. The complainant's wife and children became panic. His wife telephoned to Electrical Section Office and informed of the supply failure and requested to rectify the defect. The person attended the call agreed to attend the fault on the next day as it was night then. The complainant was also informed of the pathetic situation at home. Hence he arranged for taking supply from the light connection of Consumer No.5441 industrial connection temporarily. On 27.02.2007 at about 12 noon, R.Sasidharan Nair and Shajimon.A.G, Senior Superintendent of the office of the RAO, Thodupuzha, the inspection squad attached to the office of RAO, inspected the premises and prepared a site mahazar. The supply to Consumer No.10313 was also disconnected by them. Soon after the inspection, a bill for Rs.81,000/- from the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section of the 2^nd opposite party was issued for immediate payment. The said bill contains the noting at its top that “Tariff changed to LT VII A”. It is also stated that it is 'additional bill for unauthorised extension, inspection conducted on 27.02.2007'. The complainant filed a petition before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Section, Thodupuzha. The Deputy Chief Engineer ordered the complainant to remit Rs.40,500/-, that is 50% of the invoice amount with an application fee of Rs.1,620/-. In compliance of the above direction the complainant remitted Rs.40,500/- and Rs.1,620/- on 18.07.2008. The complainant was later heard by the Deputy Chief Engineer and he agreed partly to the contention of the complainant regarding incorrect computing of connected load in the premises and reduced the connected load to 4 KW, accordingly the 2^nd opposite party revised the bill for Rs.81,000/-as Rs.54,000/-. In the impugned bill for Rs.54,000/-, an amount of Rs.40,500/- was remitted by the complainant. Balance Rs.13,500/- was directed to be remitted on or before 23.06.2009. The opposite party who inspected the premises on 26.02.2007 computed the connected load of domestic connection under Consumer No.10313 was 6 KW. This is against the provisions of the law laid down. As per Regulation 2(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005, connected load means the sum of rated capacities in terms of KW or KVA of all connected energy consuming devices in the consumer's installation. For the purpose of levy of any charges or tariff or determining connected load, plugs with no appliances connective having 5 amps/15 amps shall be treated as 60W/500W respectively. If an equipment is connected to a plug point, equipment's load alone shall be considered. In the residential portion of the premises of the complainant the actual load is as under :

CFL 15 Watts 6 Nos 90 Watts

Fan 60 '' 6 '' 360 ''

Bulbs 15 '' 2 '' 30 ''

Plug 60 '' 2 '' 120 ''

Fridge 100 '' 1 No 100 ''

Power Plug 500 '' 1 No 500 ''

So the total is 1200 Watts. The opposite party calculated the total connected load as Rs.5483 Watts. As per the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer, it is admitted that both the capacities of the plug points and the load of the equipments need not be reckoned for computing the connected load. Accordingly the load of computer, electric iron and grinder amounting to 1573 Watts was deducted from the connected load computed by the inspecting officers. In the case of the consumer the supply was availed for a night from the mains for the bonafide purpose of lighting up the bulbs in the residential area in the same premises, when the supply thereto failed while the complainant was away and for the purpose of relieving the panic struck family comprising of wife and two school going children. As per Sub Section 5 of Section 126 of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005, “if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorised use of electricity has taken place, it shall be presumed that such unauthorised use of electricity was continuing for a period of three months”. In this case, they have calculated 6 months period immediately preceding the date of inspection. So this petition is filed against the deficiency in service of the opposite party and also for recalculating the bill issued to him.

2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the consumer is having 2 No. of electric connections, one is 5441/VMD and the other is 10313/VMD as industrial and domestic respectively. Each service connection has separate ownership certificate, building number and independent wirings. The averment that the consumer was paying Rs.30,000/- as current charge is not correct. The meter of Consumer No.10313 was not faulty as alleged by the complainant. The meter was working properly until disconnection on 25.05.2006.The service was restored on 1.03.2007 and thereafter the meter is working properly. So far there is no complaint with regard to the above meter. The story of power connection to residential portion from light meter of industrial connection is not informed to the opposite parties. The Sub Engineer is taking the monthly reading of consumer No.5441 during the first week of every month. Then there will be no detailed inspection of the premises. There was no supply failure on 26.02.2007. During the inspection of Audit Team, they noted an abnormal energy consumption for the Consumer No.5441. Since the service connection to Consumer No.10313 was disconnected due to non-payment, the complainant was consuming power unauthorisedly from industrial connection. The story of power failure report of power supply, arrangement made for supply of light etc. are false. It is also admitted that the power supply was disconnected after conducting an inspection. The tariff was not changed to LT VIIA. The noting of change of tariff is only a clerical mistake. At the time of inspection all the devises connected to the consumers installation were recorded by the inspection team. The registered connected load at the time of availing service connection on 23.06.2004 was only 1880 W. But at the time of inspection the connected load was 6000 W. The Deputy Chief Engineer after considering all the matters in the dispute ordered to pay Rs.54,000/-. The actual intention of the complainant was to make profits out of it. The power was unauthorisedly drawn for not less than 6 months(that is from 25.06.2006 to 1.03.2007) to another premise and it was done with malafide intention. As per the consumption pattern in No.10313 the rate per unit would come

to about Rs.5.30, whereas the rate in No.5441 comes to Rs.3.25 to Rs.3.75 per unit. So both the connection were given to independent and different premises. This is not a case of unauthorised additional load, but an unauthorised extension and the bill issued by the opposite party is legal. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P16(series) marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

5. The POINT :- The complainant is running an industry near to his house. There are two electric connections to the complainant, one is for industrial purpose and the other is for domestic purpose. The complainant was unauthorisedly taking electricity from the light meter of the industrial unit to domestic meter. The opposite party inspected the premises and the electric connection was disconnected. The complainant was examined as PW1. As per PW1, it is admitted that he has taken electric connection from the industry to his residence for one day. One day when the supply was failed on the night, the complainant was not at station, his wife and two school going children were all alone at home, so for their domestic purpose they availed an extension from the industry for that particular day. But the opposite parties inspected the premises on the very next day and a mahazar was prepared, which is marked as Ext.P10. It is found that the electric connection to the meter of the main switch was disconnected in Consumer No.10313/VMD and another connection was given from Consumer No.5441/VMD to the main switch of Consumer No.10313/VMD. It is also stated that the complainant has taken electric connection from the industrial unit to the main switch of the domestic connection by using a PVC wire. So the power supply was disconnected and a bill for Rs.81,000/- was calculated and given to the complainant which is marked as Ext.P1. An appeal petition was filed to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha against the bill. The Deputy Chief Engineer revised the bill as Rs.54,000/-. The complainant has paid Rs.54,000/-. The complainant has already paid Rs.40,400/- and Rs.1,620/-, copy of the receipt is marked as Ext.P2. A demand notice was issued from the opposite party for the payment of Rs.1,620/- that is Ext.P5. PW1 deposed that the building No. of the industry and the residence are one and the same which is 5/207. The domestic connection of the complainant was never disconnected by the opposite party. The complainant is having a 3 KVA UPS which is not included in the residence connection. An iron box, grinder and a computer were fixed in the residence of PW1. They were not connected at the time of inspection. All the clothes and dresses of the complainant and his family are giving for washing outside. So they never used iron box. It is only for the use of guests who comes over there. There is a shutter and a wall in between the UPS and the domestic connection. The computer is fixed in the residence of PW1. But the connection is taken from the UPS from the industry. PW2 is an advocate commissioner who inspected the premises on 14.11.2009. PW2 inspected the premises, but there was no unauthorised connection at that time. The commissioner stated that the UPS is using for commercial purpose. The 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. Exts.R1 and R1(a) are the ownership certificates issued from the Panchayath for the purpose of electrification. Ext.R2 is the consumption pattern of the electric connection of the complainant, in which it is written that from 5/2006 to 1/07 there is no payment of electricity and the meter reading from 7/06 to 9/06 is one unit per month. There is no meter reading in 11/06 and 1/07. As per the opposite party, the electric connection of the complainant was disconnected on that period and the complainant was looping electric supply from the industrial unit. Ext.P13 is the copy of bill issued on 8.07.2006 which is for Rs.75/- in consumer No.10313. Ext.P14 is the bill issued from the opposite party in consumer No.10313 which is for Rs.63/-. Ext.P15 is the bill issued by the opposite party in Consumer No.5441 which is for Rs.5,840/-. As per the opposite party, the complainant was using unauthorised electricity from the industrial unit because the tariff of the industrial unit is only Rs.3.25 to 3.75 per unit for industrial purpose. The consumption pattern for domestic purpose which is consumer No.10313, rate per unit comes to Rs.5.30. So the complainant unauthorisedly took connection from the industrial connection after disconnecting the electric supply from the meter of the domestic connection.

It is admitted by the complainant that he was taking unauthorised connection from the industrial unit to his residence, but it was only for one day. As per Ext.P10 mahazar, it is seen that the electric connection from the meter of the main switch was disconnected by the complainant in his residential connection and a parallel connection was taken from the light meter connection of the industry to the main switch of the residence connection. These matters are not challenged by the complainant in anywhere. As per the opposite party, the complainant was not paying the electric bills from 7/06 to 3/07 because the electric connection of the complainant's residence was disconnected and he was unauthorisedly taking electricity from the industrial connection. Because the tariff rate of the electric connection of the industry is very low considering the same of the residence purpose. Eventhough there is a UPS, electric iron and grinder were fixed in the residence of the complainant, PW1 deposed that they were not connected to the plug points. The electric iron was not used by the complainant or his family members. They were giving all dresses and clothes outside for washing. Ext.P13 shows that the meter reading is only one unit in Consumer No.10313 on 8.07.2006 and in Ext.P14, the meter reading shows there is no meter reading in consumer No.10313 on 6.01.2007. So it makes us to think as a conclusion that the complainant took unauthorised electricity from the industrial connection in the period of Ext.P13 and P14. P10 mahazar says the same also. The calculation of the unauthorised consumption was recalculated by the Deputy Chief Engineer and another regularised bill was given.

So we think that there is no deficiency is seen from the part of the opposite party and hence the petition is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8^th day of March, 2010

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - B.C.Ansari

PW2 - Jose Thomas

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - K.J.Sajimon

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Current Bill dated 6.03.2007 for Rs.81,000/-

Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 18.07.2008 for Rs.40,500/-

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 15.07.2008 for Rs.1,620/-

Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Current Bill dated 23.06.2009 for Rs.13,500/-

Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Covering letter of Ext.P4 bill dated 23.06.2009

issued by the 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P6(series) - The Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 Terms & Conditions

Ext.P7 - Photocopy of Electricity Act, 2003(Page Nos.72,73, 74 & 75)

Ext.P8 - Photocopy of Current Bill of 1/07 for Rs.30,406/-

Ext.P9 - Photocopy of Proceedings No.BB3/101/2006-07 dated 30.05.2006

of 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P10 - Photocopy of Sire Mahazar prepared by R.Sasidharan Nair,

Sub Engineer, KSEB, Vandanmedu

Ext.P11 - Photocopy of Circular NO.RAO/M.Cell/2007/87 dated 5.12.2007

issued by the KSEB

Ext.P12 - KSE Board – Terms & Conditions of Supply, 2005 – Reg.34, 35 & 36

Ext.P13 - Photocopy of Current Bill dated 8.07.2006 for Rs.75/-

Ext.P14 - Photocopy of Current Bill dated 6.01.2007 for Rs.63/-

Ext.P15 - Photocopy of Current Bill dated 10.08.2009 for Rs.5,840/-

Ext.P16(series)- Photocopy of Page Nos.16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21of KSEB

Order for Tariff

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Residential/Ownership Certificate issued by the

Secretary, Chakkupallam Grama Panchayath

Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Energy Consumption details of complainant

Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Notification – Officers appointed in exercise of powers

under Sub Section (2) of Section 135