KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO:505/2005 

                                 JUDGMENT DATED:06..01..2010.

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN                 : MEMBER

SRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                         : MEMBER

1.The Secretary, KSEB,

  Vydhyuthi Bhavan,

  Pattom, Trivandrum.

                                                                                    : APPELLANTS

2.The Asst. Ex. Engineer,

  Electrical Sub Division,

Kottarakkara.

(By Adv:Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

          Vs.

Thomas.P.Varghese,

Proprietor, Red Cross Medical Centre,

Hospital Junction, Kottarakkara,                     : RESPONDENT

Kollam.

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:1..12..2004 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP:376/03.  The complaint therein was filed by the respondent herein against the appellants/opposite parties alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P1 notice dated:23..9..2003 and also in issuing additional bill for unauthorized use of energy.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying and disputing the alleged deficiency of service.  They contended that the complainant being a beneficiary of the electricity supply connection misused the energy by exceeding connected load and also consumed energy for running an X-ray plant without obtaining the necessary radiation safety certificate from the concerned authority.  Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P12 documents were marked on his side.  From the side of the opposite parties DW1, the then Executive Engineer, Kottarakkara was examined.  Exts.D1 to D7 documents were also marked on their side.  On  an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint and thereby quashed the notice dated:23..9..2003.  The opposite parties were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- by way of compensation.  Hence the present appeal by the opposite parties therein.

3. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant.  We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties.  He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He has also relied on the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the opposite parties.  He much relied on D1 site mahazar and D7 letter issued by the Director of Radiation Safety and argued for the position that the respondent/complainant misused the energy supplied to the consumer Mr.R.Rajasekharan Pillai.  Thus, the appellants requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

4. The points that arise for consideration are:-

1.                             Whether the appellants/opposite parties can be justified in issuing P1 notice to the complainant intimating disconnection of the electricity line drawn for giving connection to the X-ray plant installed by the complainant?

2.                             Whether there was any mis-use of energy supplied to Consumer No:17504?

3.                             Whether the Forum below can be justified in quashing P1 notice dated:23..9..2003 and directing the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1000/-?

5. Points 1 to 3:-

Admittedly the respondent/complainant is a beneficiary of the electric connection given to Mr.Rajasekharan Pillai with Consumer No:17504.  There can be no doubt that the respondent/complainant is only a beneficiary of the electricity connection.  It is admitted by the complainant that he has been running an institution by name Red Cross Medical Centre.  It is also admitted by the complainant that he has installed an X-ray plant and he is consuming energy for running the said X-ray plant.  The D1 site mehazar prepared by the opposite parties would show that the electricity connection given for Cosnumer No:17504 has been misused.  There can be no doubt about the fact that the complainant has exceeded the connected load by connecting additional load to the said electricity connection.  The permitted load was only 1060 watts.  But the existing connected load would come to 6075 watts.  Thus, there was an unathorised connected load of 5015 watts.  The aforesaid unauthorized connected load would make it clear that the complainant has misused energy as defined in clause 42(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  If that be so, the opposite parties are perfectly justified in issuing the penal bill for Rs.3,960/- by invoking the provisions of clause 42 (d) of Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.

6. The Forum below has entered into a finding that the complainant being the consumer of electrical energy can use the energy for any purpose provided that the energy charges are being paid.  But the said finding of the Forum below cannot be justified in the light of the provisions contained in the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy, especially clause 42(d).  So the finding of the Forum below that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the penal bill for Rs.3960/- cannot be upheld.  The aforesaid finding was made by the Forum below without going through the provisions of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  We have no hesitation to quash the aforesaid findings made by the Forum below.

7. Admittedly the complainant has been consuming energy for running an X-ray plant.  There is no evidence to show that the complainant has taken necessary safety measures and obtained the certificate from the Director of Radiation Safety.  Ext.D7 letter issued by the Director of Radiation Safety would make it abundantly clear that the complainant is running the X-ray plant without taking the necessary certificate or approval from the Director of Radiation safety.  In such a situation the opposite parties are perfectly justified in issuing P1 notice dated:23..9..2003.  Thus, in all respects the complainant is not entitled to get the bill or the notice issued by the opposite parties cancelled.  In fact the respondent/complainant misused the electrical energy supplied to the Consumer No:17504 by exceeding the connected load.  The opposite parties can very well direct the complainant to remove the unauthorized connected load and also to stop the running of X-ray plant without getting the approval of the Director of Radiation safety.  The proceedings initiated by the opposite parties are to be treated as sustainable and in accordance with law.  The respondent/complainant moved the Forum below without disclosing the entire facts.  The Forum below without appreciating the available evidence on record, passed the impugned order.  It can very safely be concluded that the materials on record have not been considered by the Forum below .  So, the impugned order has no leg to stand.  We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The complaint in OP:376/03 on the file of CDRF, Kollam is also liable to be dismissed.  Hence we do so.  These points are answered accordingly.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated:1..12..2004 passed by the CDRF, Kollam in OP:376/03 is set aside and the complaint in the said OP:376/03 is dismissed.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out.

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VALSALA SARANGADHARAN   : MEMBER

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER

VL.