BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.200/2008 Between Complainant : Varghese Philip, Panakkuzhiyil House, Vellathooval P.O, Kuthupara, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.J.Thomas) And Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary, Kerala Electricity Board, Vydhyudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Executive Engineer, Kerala Electricity Board, Elerctrical Division, Kallarkutty P.O. 3. The Assistant Engineer, Kerala Electricity Board, Elerctrical Section, Adimali. P.O.
O R D E R SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complaint is filed against the KSEB for alleging deficiency in service and for cancelling a hike bill issued by them.
Complainant is a consumer of opposite party as Consumer No.15808/ADY for his mobile phone business concern in the name and style “Aiswarya Communications". He was promptly paying the bills issued by the opposite party under VII B tariff. On 29.10.2008, the 3rd opposite party inspected the shop of the complainant and instructed the complainant to meet him at 3 p.m. The complainant was not able to meet the opposite party on that day. On 13.10.2008 the 3rd opposite party issued a bill for Rs.2,407/- as penal charges for 2 years and tariff of electric connection was changed from VII B to VII A. The complainant made several complaints about the invoice to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. But they were not accepted the complaint filed by the complainant. The Complainant purchased an old Photostat machine on 28.08.2008 and was kept in his shop for returning the same, because it was not working. The complainant never attempted to use the machine in his shop. But the 3rd opposite party when inspected the premises, the connected load was calculated with the working of the Photostat machine. The energy meter of the complainant's shop was working. If the Photostat machine was working at that time, the meter would have showed the same. But the 3rd opposite party deliberately issued a bill because he was keeping in enmity against the complainant. So the complaint is filed for cancelling the penal bill issued by the opposite party.
2. The 3rd opposite party filed a written version on behalf of the Ist and 2nd opposite parties, admitted that the Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as consumer No.15808/ADY and a registered commercial consumer under Electrical Section, Adimali under the name the Secretary, SNDP Union, Vellathooval. On 29.10.2008 at 2.45 P.M, the 3rd opposite party carried out an inspection at the premises of Consumer No.15808/ADY as a part of usual inspection. The authorized connected load of the consumer was 1000 Watts. But in the inspection, it was seen that the total connected load installed on the premises was 1890 Watts, thus it was seen that the complainant was using 890 Watts unauthorizedly. According to Board Rule, any installation of additional load may be made only with the prior sanction of the Board. It is to be noted that the tariff applicable to commercial consumers having connected load upto 1000 watts is VII B, whereas consumers having connected loads more than 1000 watts go to VII A. According to Sub Section 5 of Section 126 of the Electricity Amendment Act 2007, if the assessing officer reaches to the conclusion that unauthorized use of electricity has taken place, the assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such use has taken place and if, however, the period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of inspection. Accordingly a provisional penal assessment for Rs.2,407/- of 12 months back has been prepared and served to the petitioner. The details of the calculation are also enclosed and the penal bill dated 30.10.2008 for Rs.2,407/- is quite genuine, lawful and the consumer is liable to pay. The change of tariff from VII B to VII A is done in accordance with the Electricity Act 2003. 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 PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite parties.
5.The POINT :- Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as Consumer No.15808 of Adimali Electrical Division. The opposite party inspected in the Mobile shop of the complainant on 29.10.2008 and found that a Photostat machine was installed in the connected load of electrical connection of the shop. After preparing a mahazar, a penal bill was given to the complainant. Complainant was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that he is using only below 10 units of electrical energy in one month and properly paying the bills. The room in which complainant conducting the business is of SNDP Union and so the Union President is the real consumer but the copy of the licence in the name of the complainant is produced, is marked as Ext.P1. On 29.10.2008, the 3rd opposite party inspected the complainant's shop. Ext.P4 is the copy of the mahazar of the inspection and told the complainant to appear before the opposite party. The complainant did not do so, but a penal bill was issued for Rs.2,407/-, which is Ext.P3. Complaint was given to Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Deputy E.E against this. Copy of the complaint is marked as Ext.P6. But they replied that the complainant should pay Rs.500/- and half of the bill amount for filing the appeal. The opposite party filed written version, as per the written version, while the 3rd opposite party conducted inspection on 29.10.2008, it was found that the total load installed in the premises was 1890. The authorised connected load of the consumer was 1000 Watts. According to the Bord Rule, any installation of additional load may be made with prior sanction of the Board. It is noted that tariff applicable to commercial consumers using connected load upto 1000 Watts is VII B where the consumers having connected load more than 1000 Watts go to VII A. So it is treated as unauthorized use of energy within the means of Electricity Act 2003. So the consumer shall be penalized in the same manners as in respect of misuse of electric energy under Sub Section 5 and 6 of the Electricity (Amendment) Act 2007. The period during which such unauthorized use of electricity has taken place cannot be ascertained, such period shall limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceding inspection. So Rs.2,407/- is charged. In this case the complainant also admitted that the Photostat machine was present in the shop at the time of inspection of the 3rd opposite party. But as per the complainant it was not working and was an old one, brought recently. Complainant produced the copy of the bill of the second hand machine dated 28.08.2008, which was marked as Ext.P5. As per the complainant, the machine was bought only on 28.08.2008. The Ext.P5 bill was not challenged by the opposite party. As per the mahasar two witnesses were signed, but the complainant or the opposite party never examined them as a witness to prove that whether the machine was connected or was working at the time of inspection. If it was a Photostat shop, there would have a board named Photostat Shop, but this matter also not described either by mahazar or anybody. So without challenging the Ext.P5 bill the penal bill for 12 months cannot be considered. If the Photostat machine was connected to the electricity load, and was working the electrical energy meter should have showed the reading for the same. The Photostat machine always consumes electrical energy very high comparing to other electrical instruments. The meter reader of the opposite party never noticed an increase electrical energy in the meter reading of the complainant. The electricity bill also would have increased. There is no complaint is put forwarded by the opposite party that the meter was faulty. So we think that the Photostat machine was not connected and was not working at the time of inspection. It is not proper to issue a penal bill only because that a Photostat machine was seen at the shop when opposite party conducted inspection, complainant admitted the same also. So there is nothing reasonable to disbelieve the version of the complainant. So we think it is fit to cancel the penal bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to cancel the penal bill issued to the complainant as Ext.P3 for Rs.2,407/-. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2009 Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Varghese Philip On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits On the side of Complainant : Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Licence Agreement Ext.P2 - Authorisation letter dated 10.11.2008 filed by K.T.Sukumaran, Secretary, SNDP Union, Adimali Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Demand Notice cum Disconnection Notice dated 30.10.2008 issued by the opposite party Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Site Mahazar prepared by the 3rd opposite party Ext.P5 - Photocopy of Bill dated 28.08.2008 for Rs.12,000/- of Hi Tech Systems, Chanaganassery Ext.P6 - Photocopy of complainant's complaint letter datd 7.11.2008 addressed to the 3rd opposite party Ext.P7 - Photocopy of current bill dated 16.12.2008 On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil |