CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 98/2010
Thursday, the 10th day of March, 2011.
Petitioner : Udayan V.S
Vazhayil House,
Kurichi P.O
Changanacherry.
(By Adv. K. Jidhesh)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The KSEB,
Vyduthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Trivandrum
reptd. by its Secretary.
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
K.S.E.B, Electrical Major Section,
Pallam.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Case of the petitioner filed on 8..4..2010 is as follows:
Petitioner, as a beneficiary of service availed by opposite party, is conducting a toddy shop. Petitioner’s consumer No. is 3945 at LT VII A tariff. According to the petitioner income from the toddy shop is his only source of livelihood. On 20..5..2009 R.A.O Kottayam inspected the premises of the petitioner and find that the energy consumption of the petitioner is 7960 W. Inspection team prepared a mahazar and given a copy of the mahazar to petitioner. Petitioner objected the inspection conducted by the opposite party but without considering objection of the petitioner opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner on 30..5..2009 for an amount of Rs. 29,245/-. Petitioner had given an objection to the bill to the Assistant Engineer, Nattakom Electrical Section. He considered the objection of the petitioner as an appeal. The objection of the petitioner is filed on 29..6..2009 and a
-2-
final order was passed on 6..10..2009. According to the petitioner air conditioner mentioned in the mahazar is purchased on 2..5..2005 and is not functioning. The original bill showing purchase of the air conditioner was produced before the opposite party and same was not considered. Opposite party without serving the final bill threatened the petitioner that they will disconnect the electric connection to the petitioner’s premises. So, petitioner remitted the bill amount to the opposite party. According to the petitioner the bill issued to the petitioner is not legal and proper. Petitioner has no unauthorized additional load before and after inspection. Petitioner at the time of installation of the air conditioner showed the same as additional connected load. Further, on 25..3..2010 opposite party issued an additional penal bill for an amount of Rs. 21,059/-. According to the petitioner issuance of the said bill is also not legal and proper. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 30..5..2009 and 18..3..2010. Petitioner also claims refund of the amount remitted by the petitioner. He claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party petitioner is not a consumer. Since the service hired is for commercial purpose petition itself is not maintainable. On 20..5..2009 the R.A.O along with Sub Engineer conducted inspection and prepared the site mahazar. Upon inspection bill for Rs. 23245/- under section 126 (3) of Electricity Act 2003 is given to the petitioner. Petitioner without any protest remitted the amount demanded. Bill was issued on 30..5..2009 objection was given on 5..6..2009. On inspection conducted on 20..5..2009 it was
-3-
found that there is an additional connected load of 2 KW in the premises of the petitioner. On 25..3..2008 petitioner regularized the un authorized additional load. The bill issued on 30..5..2009 is the penal bill issued for the un authorized consumption, before the date of inspection. The bill issued on 25..3..2010 is the penal bill for a period from 20..5..2009 to 25..3..2010. According to the opposite party the bill issued to the petitioner is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
ii) Relief and costs.
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A12 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B7 documents on the side of the opposite parties.
Point No. 1
Petitioner disputed the bill Dtd: 30..5..2009 and 18..3..2010 on the following grounds.
(a) According to the petitioner the assessment conducted by the RAO is not an assessment come under the preview of an assessment under section 126. (b) According to the petitioner RAO is not an assessing officer defined in the explanation of section 126. (c) According to the petitioner inspection is illegal.
The first question to be decided whether the inspection conducted by the opposite party on 20..5..2009 is an assessment under section 126 of electricity Act
-4-
2003. Mahazar produced by the opposite party is marked as Ext. B1.. Ext. B1 is prepared by the Sub Engineer of the opposite party. In Ext. B1 Sub Engineer stated that the inspection was conducted by the RAO team and Sub Engineer prepared the mahazar in the presence of the RAO team. So, from Ext. B1 document opposite party admitted that the assessment was conducted by the RAO team. Section 126 of Electricity Act states that inspection under section 126 is to be conducted by “Assessing Officer”. Explanation to 126 of electricity Act states that assessing officer is an officer of State Government or board or licensee as the case may be designated as such by state government. So, in our view an inspection conducted by the RAO team cannot be said to be an inspection under section 126 of the Electricity Act. So, the inspection itself is not conducted by an “assessing officer”. As per section 126 (2) the opposite party is duty bound to serve provisional bill to the petitioner. Bill issued to the petitioner is dated 30..5..2009. Said bill is marked as Ext. B5. No where in Ext. B5 it is stated that it is a provisional bill under section 126 (2). Ext. B5 does not contain a statement with regard to the petitioners right to file objection etc. After hearing objection of the petitioner opposite party issued Ext. B4 final order. In Ext. B4 order it is stated that it is a disposal of the appeal petition. Further more as per the provision of 126 the final order under section 126 (3) is to be passed by the assessing officer. So, in our view the disputed bill dated 30..5..2009 is not legal and proper. The petitioner also challenge the subsequent bill dated 26..10..2009. Since the inspection and the issuance of the previous bills are illegal. The subsequent bill Dtd: 18..3..2010 is also not legal and proper and is liable to be cancel. So, we are of the view that the bill issued by opposite party dated
-5-
30..5..2009 and 18..3..2010 is not proper and there is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. In the result the bill Dtd: 30..5..2009 and bill Dtd: 18..3..2010 is cancelled. Opposite party is ordered to issue a fresh bill to the petitioner for the actual consumption of energy by the petitioner. Opposite party is ordered to adjust the amount remitted by the petitioner as per bill Dtd: 30..5..2009 in his future bills. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th day of March, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX
Documents for the Petitioner:
Ext. A1: Bill Dtd: 9..4..2010
Ext. A2: Bill Dtd: 30..5..2009
Ext. A3: Receipt Dtd: 26..10..2009
Ext. A4: Proceedings Dtd: 6..10..2009
Ext. A5: Copy of the mahazar Dtd: 20..5..2009
Ext. A6: Bill Dtd: 25..5..2009
Ext. A7: Bill Dtd: 2..7..2009
Ext. A8: Bill Dtd: 5..9..2009
Ext. A9: Bill Dtd: 2..1..2010
Ext. A10: Bill Dtd: 3..3..2009
Ext. A11: Bill Dtd: 2..1..2009
Ext. A12 Bill Dtd: 3..11..2008
Documents for the opposite party
Ext. B1: Mahazar Dtd: 20..5..2009
Ext. A2: Letter Dtd: 5..6..2009 from Shri. Madhavan to A.E
Ext. B3: Copy of bill From Vijaya Home Appliance Dtd: 2..5..2009
Ext. B4: Proceedings of the A.E Nattakom
Ext. A5: Bill Dtd: 30..5..2009
Ext. B6: Letter Dtd: 30..5..2009
Ext. B7: Receipt Dtd: 25..3..2010.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
