DATE OF FILING : 9.9.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.196/2010
Between
Complainant : Saboor Ali Khan, S/o Abdul Khadar,
Mundackal House,
Karikkode P.O., Thodupuzha,
(Solaris Technologies,
Jyothi Super Bazar, Thodupuzha)
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Lissi. M.M.)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattaom P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Section – Thodupuzha,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is conducting a computer educational institution in Jyothi Super bazaar at Thodupuzha in the name and style, Solaris Technologies. The institution is having SSI registration and conducting by the aid of PMRY loan. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.11700 for conducting the same. On 22.7.2010 in the morning at about 11.30, the Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite party inspected the institution of the complainant and it is found out that the complainant is having a single phase electrical connection with connected load of 2660 watts under LT VI B tariff. But there is a load of 5805 watts was unauthorisedly connected to the complainant's connection which leads to LT VII A tariff and so a mahazar was prepared by the opposite party. A provisional assessment bill was also issued to the complainant as on 26.7.2010, as per the mahazar report, for an amount of Rs.21,612/-. So the complainant filed an appeal before the 2nd opposite party on 7.8.2010, but the appeal was dismissed by the 2nd opposite party on 18.8.2010 directing to pay the amount to the opposite party. When the inspection was conducting by the opposite party, there were no students present at the complainant's institution. Eventhough an air conditioner was fitted there, it was not working. The air conditioner fitted was a window air conditioner and it was not removed because of the security problem. No notice was received from the opposite party directing the complainant to change the tariff of connection from LT VI B to LT VII A. The institution of the complainant is an educational one and as per the Government Order No.BO/FM/GENL/1993/2010 dated 30/7/2010, if there is an additional load to the connection, self
(cont......2)
- 2 -
declaration can be given for the same and so the complainant can get the relaxation of the same up to 30.9.2010. Nobody was using the internet facility at the time of inspection of the opposite party. So this petition is filed for cancelling the bill issued by the opposite party dated 26.7.2010.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.11700 under Electrical Section No.1 Thodupuzha, as LT VI B tariff with a sanctioned connected load of 2660 watts for running computer training institution named Solaris Technologies. During inspection on 22.7.2010, it was found that the institution dealt with commercial activities such as internet, E-mail, chatting, DTP, offset printing, multi colour designing, video conferencing etc., which is very clear from the sticker pasted in the entrance door of the institution. On 22.7.2010 the members of the Anti Power Theft Squad, Vazhathope of the KSE Board along with the Sub Engineer of the Thodupuzha No.1 section inspected the premises of the above consumer and detected an unauthorised additional load of 3 KW with misusing of energy by wrong tariff. The actual tariff applicable to commercial activities such as internet cafe is LT VII A and not LT VI B. Copy of the gazette notification enclosed. Accordingly the consumer is penalised as per clause 126 of Electricity Act, 2003 and issued provisional invoice for Rs.21,612/- on 26.7.2010. The complainant filed objection petition on 7.8.2010 before the assessing officer who in this case is the Assistant Engineer of Electrical Section No.1 Thodupuzha and the provisional invoice was confirmed in the absence of any ground to revise the bill and the matter was intimated to the petitioner. The complainant was also given intimation about the provision for filing appeal petition before the appellate authority after remitting the application fees and 50% of the penal bill amount. If he is not satisfied with the orders of the assessing officer, the complainant can file appeal as per rule 127 of Electricity Act, 2003. As per the Board Order No. B.O. (FM) (Genl.) No.1993/2010(DPCII/A E/Proposal 02/2010) dated Thiruvananthapuram, 30.7.2010. The voluntary disclosure of the unauthorised additional load come into force with effect from 30.7.2010. The APTS inspection was on 22.7.2010 and issue of penal bill was on 26.7.2010. So the complainant is not eligible to get any relief as per the order since the inspection and issuing of penal bill has been done prior to the above Board Order. The consumer availed the service connection for computer training. But on inspection it is noticed that the main business of the complainant is commercial purpose of DTP, internet, offset printing, multi colour designing, video conference etc., which is a misuse of tariff. By suppressing the fact the complainant used the service connection to other purposes and enjoyed a tariff lower than the applicable tariff. In this case, the energy is supplied for a specific purpose under a particular tariff, but the complainant used the energy for some other purposes under a different tariff. KSE Board has sustained financial loss on account of misuse of energy and violated the provisions of terms and conditions of Supply Act 2005 and hence he has been penalised. And thus the complainant is not eligible for any relief as requested.
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 PW1 and Exts.P1 & P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts. R1 & R2(series) marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- As per the deposition of PW1, he conducted a Computer Educational Institution and the connection availed by the complainant is in LT 6B tariff. But the Squad of the opposite party inspected the premises and a mahassar was prepared by them and a bill was issued which is marked as Ext.P1 for an amount of Rs.21,612/-. A letter was also issued with the bill
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
which is marked as Ext.P2 dated 26.7.2010. A complaint was given to the Assistant Electrical Engineer by the complainant stating that he availed the connection for educational purpose by the financial aid of PMRY loan with SSI registration. The air conditioner fitted in the building was used only for one year and because of the security problem, the window A/C fitted was not removed. The internet was not working and the A/C was not using at the time of inspection. No notice was issued by the opposite party before directing to change the tariff to 7A from 6B. All the bills were promptly paid by the complainant. As per the opposite party, the connected load given to the complainant was only 2660 LT 6B tariff, but on inspection of Anti Power Theft Squad of the opposite party, it was found that the consumer was using a connected load of 5805 watts as UPS of 1.5 KVA – 2 Nos., A/C of 2700 Watts – 1 No., fan of 60 Watts – 3 Nos., tubelight of 40 Watts – 2 Nos, bulb of 40 Watts – 1 No., CFL of 15 Watts – 3 Nos.. The internet, E-mail, chatting, DTP, offset printing, multi colour designing, video conferencing were done in that building. The mahazar is marked as Ext.R1 and the front side photograph of the building is marked as Ext.R2 (series) in which it is written in the front glass as internet, E-mail, voice chatting, video conferencing, DTP, multi colour designing, offset printing etc. So it means that the complainant was conducting a commercial institution there, as per the Ext.R2(series) photograph and as per the mahazar also. The complainant was duly signed in the mahassar and there is no objection filed by the complainant regarding the mahazar. It is also admitted by PW1 that the A/C was fitted and it was working only for one year, it was not removed because of the security problem. Ext.R2(series) photographs are also admitted by PW1.
So we think that the complainant was conducting commercial activities in his premises by availing electrical connection from the opposite party and the mahazar prepared by the Anti Power Theft Squad was not challenged by the complainant. So the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant is as per the mahazar and as per the schedule of tariff, terms and conditions for regular supply by Kerala State Electricity Board with effect from 1.12.2007 as per the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission published in the Kerala Gazette. And there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that there is any deficiency in the part of the opposite parties.
Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Saboor Ali Khan
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of the Provisional Assessment Bill dated 26.7.2010.
Ext.P2 - Copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 26.7.2010.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the site mahazar prepared by the Sub-Engineer, Electrical Section,
Thodupuzha, dated 22.7.2010.
Ext.R2(series) - Front side photographs of the building – 2 Nos.
