THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Present:
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No. 213/2007
Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2011
Petitioner : Dewy Mathew,
Purappanthanathu
Teekoy P.O, Erattupetta
(By Adv. Francis Thomas)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Secretary,
KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) The Asst. Exe. Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
KSEB, Erattupetta.
O R D E R
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President
This is a case remanded by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per its order Dtd: 6..9..2007 in appeal No. 552/2001. Petitioner seeks relief of canceling invoice No. 0455900 and 0455895. Petitioner is running a small scale industry by name “Classic Rubber Profiles” manufacturing ambassador car bush from 1990. Opposite parties supply electrical energy to his industry, consumer number is 9566. At first the connected load was 15 HP and later it was increased by 14.5 HP and now the connected load is 29.5 HP. Petitioner is employing 18 workers in the factory According to the petitioner he used to pay the electrical bills without default on all months. The maximum bill amount during the period from April 1999 to October 1999 was Rs. 11619/-. On 23..11..2009 petitioner received 2 invoices from the office of the second opposite party for Rs. 67515/- and 25687/- respectively. The details as to how the amounts were arrived at have not been mentioned in the said bills. Even though the petitioner requested the authorities of the first opposite party to furnish the details they did not do so. On further enquiry
-2-
petitioner came to know that the details were issued on presumption that there is un authorized additional load in the premises of the petitioner. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in issuing 2 bills amounts to deficiency in service . Hence he filed this petition for cancellation of the said 2 bills and other reliefs.
Second opposite party filed version for himself and on behalf of the first opposite party with the following contentions. On 9..11..99 the APTS of K.S.E.B
inspected the premises of the petitioner and found that the connected load of the petitioner was heavily increased without consent of the board. The connected load allotted to the petitioner was only 23 KW and the actual load was seen enhanced to 52 KW. As a result of the huge increase in the connected load, the power meter was damaged on September, 1999. According to the opposite party there is mis use of energy on such circumstances the two impugned bills were issued. For misuse of energy. Subsequently petitioner intimated that un authorized additional load was removed. So the factory was inspected by the opposite parties on 18..12..99 and it was noticed that additional load has been removed. Opposite party contented that bill issued is legal and proper and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Opposite party prays 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) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and the deposition of DW1 . On the side of the opposite party. Ext. A1 to A8 Documents were marked on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B9 documents marked.
-3-
Point No. 1
Hon’ble state commission remanded the case with the following directions.
i) The lower forum should give opportunity to the opposite party to prove that amount demand as per bill is correct by examining the officer or officers who conducted the surprise inspection on 11..11..99 and also to prove facts stated in mahazar prepared while conducting surprise inspection on 11..11..99.
ii) Opportunity should also be given to the opposite parties to produce the communication, if any sent to it by the complainant stating the un authorized connected load was removed by him.
In the appeal opposite party produced the mahazar prepared by the APTS and the same is marked by the appellate Commission as Ext. B2. Ext. B2 is dtd 11..11..99. B2 is seen prepared by one Rajendraprasad, Sub Engineer, of the opposite party. After remand of the case opposite party examined one K.P Mony as DW1. According to the opposite party DW1 is a person who accompanied the squad. During cross examination DW1 stated that there is no signature of DW1 is Ext. B2. Opposite party has not stated any reason why they have not examined the person who prepared mahazar. Even though the Hon’ble State Commission directed the opposite party to produce one communication sent by the petitioner to the opposite party stating the removal un authorized connection but no such document were produced by the opposite party to prove such a communication. So, in our view their may not be such communication as alleged by the opposite party.
The moot question to be decided in this case is whether there is an un authorized connected load in the premises of the petitioner or not. According to the opposite party on 9/99 the meter installed in the petitioners premises was damaged due to huge load but opposite party has not stated anything why they had not taken
-4-
any action on or after 9/99 with regard to the use of huge load by the petitioner. So, In our view case of the opposite party that there is un authorized additional load before 11/09 is not believable . Ext. B2 is the site mahazar prepared by the opposite party. In Ext. B2 19 equipments are shown connected in the premises of the petitioner. Total connected load of the first 4 equipment will come to 23 KW. In Ext. B2 itself it is stated that equipments from 5th to 19 item were not using that also shows that the case of the petitioner is more probable. According to petitioner there is 2 separate connection and the equipments are equipped in adjacent rooms of one industrial units. Ext. B9 is the meter reading register produced by the opposite party. In Ext. B9 (a) the consumption of the petitioner is shown. Ext. B8 is the calculation register kept in the office of the opposite party. Ext. B8 (a) is the calculation with regard to the 2 disputed bills. From Ext. B8 (a) it can be seen that some calculation already made by the opposite party is scored. Ext. A25 is the previous bill issued to the petitioner just before the inspection. In Ext. A25 the energy charge is shown as 2905. On perusal of Ext. A25 it can be seen that consumption shown in Ext. A25 is the average of previous six months consumption. So, On perusal of the entire previous bills issued by the opposite party it can be seen that before inspection the bills are issued to the opposite party on the basis that the meter of the petitioner is faulty. So in our view the opposite party failed to prove that there is un authorized additional load in the premises of the petitioner. So, issuance of the additional bill
with vide No. 455900 and 455800 amounts to clear deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.
-5-
Point No. 2
In view of the finding in point No. 1, the bill with vide No: 455900 and 455800 are liable to be cancelled and they are cancelled. Opposite parties are directed to issue fresh bill to the petitioner on the basis of the meter reading or the average reading to the petitioner and the petitioner will pay the amounts. Opposite parties will adjust the amount if any already paid by the petitioner in respect of this bills and demand only the balance. Considering the nature of the case no cost and compensation is ordered. The order will be complied with within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and
pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th 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: Copy of the certificate from the Industries department
Ext. A2: Copy of application from for permanent SSI registration.
Ext. A3: Copy of license (temporary)
Ext. A4: Copy of license
Ext. A5: Copy of certificate from the Teekoy Panchayat
Ext. A6: Copy of certificate Dt: 22..1..2000
Ext. A7: Copy of possession & Non-attachment certificate
Ext. A8: Copy of certificate from Taluk Office Meenachil
Ext. A9: Copy of tax receipt
Ext. A10: -do-
Ext. A11: Stamped copy of registration
Ext. A12: Copy of certificate of incorporation
Ext. A13:
Ext. A14: Copy of loan sanctioning order (Rs. 2 lakhs)
Ext. A15: -do- for Rs. 15 lakhs
Ext.A16: Copy of agreement
Ext. A17: Copy of agreement
Ext. A18: Copy of letter Dt: 29..11..99
Ext. A19: Copy of bills
Ext. A37: Copy of bills
Ext. A38 Copy of order Dt: 7..12..99
Ext. A39: Copies of money orders
-6-
Ext. A40 -do-
Ext. A41: -do-
Ext. A42: Copy of letter Dt: 11..5..2000
Ext. A43: -do- Dt: 29..4..2000
Ext. A44: Copy of letter to the opposite party Dt: 18..5..2000
Ext. A45: -do- Dt: 25..5..2000
Ext. A46: -do- Dt: 24..5..2000
Ext. A47: -do- Dt:03..06..2000
Ext. A48: Copy of letter to the petitioner dt: 3..6..2000
Ext. A49: Copy of letter to the opposite party dt: 9..6..2000
Ext. A50: Copy to the petitioner Dt: 8..6..2000
Ext. A51: Copy to the petitioner Dt: 12..6..2000
Ext. A52: Copy to the petitioner dt: 13..6..2000
Ext. A53: Copy of G.D Abstract of Erattupetta Police station
Ext. A54: Copy of report of Erattupetta S.I
Ext: A55: Copy of report from the Fireforce
Ext. A56: Copy of premises meter card
Ext. A57: Copy of the receipt
Ext. A58: Copy of chalan
Ext. A59: Copy of version of 2nd opposite party
Ext. A60:
Ext. A61: Copy of letter from Asst. Exe. Engineer to the Executive engineer.
Ext.A62: Copy of letter from the petitioner to Asst. Exe. Engineer, Erattupetta.
Ext. A63: Letter from Electrical Inspector to the petitioner
Ext. A64: Copy of bills
Ext. A64(a) -do-
Ext. A65: Copy of letter to the deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Pala
Ext. A66: Copy of letter to the Exe. Engineer, Dt: 26..11..99
Ext. A67: -do- Asst. Executive Engineer Dt: 29..11..99
Ext. A68 – A81 : Copy of bills.
Documents for the Opposite party:
Ext. B1: Site Mahazar
Ext. B2: Inspection report
Ext. B3: Copy of proceedings of electrical inspector
Ext. B4: Copy of order of electrical inspector
Ext. B5: Circular Dtd: 4..9..2000
Ext. B6: Copy of letter No. B1-597/98/ELK Dtd: 14..9..99
Ext. B7: APTS Inspection Register
Ext. B7(a) Page No. 132 of B7
Ext. B7(b) Page No. 133 of B7.
Ext. B8: Calculation register
Ext. B9: Entry on 8..12..99 on Ext. B8 document.
Ext. B9(a) Page No. 11 of Ext. B9.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
