SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

It is aggrieved by the order dated:30-5-2009 in CC.145/08 of CDRF, Kottayam that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties calling for the interference of this commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.  By the impugned order the Forum below has cancelled the bill dated:28/5/2008 for Rs.4494/-.  The complainant was ordered to apply for electric connection by complying of the legal formalities for getting the electric connection for the purpose of functioning offices they desire and the 1^st opposite party is directed to fix the tariff of the petitioner as per the schedule of tariff and conditions of supply within one month from the receipt of the order.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he was a consumer of the opposite parties and the connection was given in the year 2005 and that on 28/5/2008 the opposite party issued a bill for Rs.4494/- for the period from 6/06 to 5/08.  According to the complainant the bill is unsustainable.  Though he has admitted that there was a Trade Union Office functioning in the premises he was liable to pay charges under tariff I-B only and the imposition of charges under tariff LT-VII A is illegal and that it was made only to harass the complainant.  He has also a case that the opposite parties are not entitled to collect penal bill for more than 6 months.  Alleging deficiency of service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill and to pay Rs.1000/- as costs.

3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the connection was originally in the name of one Varkey for running a small shop and that the complaint was to be dismissed on that ground.  It was also submitted that on 14/5/2008 the Assistant Engineer of Electrical Section, Erattupetta had inspected the premises and found that the premises was being used for more than one purpose and that there was unauthorized connected load also in the premises.  The functioning of a Photostat copying centre, an Advocate Office and Trade Union Office with connected load of more than the sanctioned load were liable to be charged under LT VII A and the issuance of the bill was perfectly justified.  Contending that there was no deficiency of service, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. The evidence consisted of the affidavits filed by both parties and Ext.A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite parties.

5. Head both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that it was due to the detection of consumption for more than one purpose that the additional bill for Rs.4494/- was issued.  He has submitted that as per Sec.126 of the Electricity Act, the complaint was not maintainable as there was clear unauthorized use of electrical energy and that there was unauthorized additional load also in the premises.  The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are entitled to charge for one year if under misuse or unauthorized additional load are found in the premises and in the instant case the appellants had issued the bill under section.126 (5&6) of the Electricity Act, 2003.  It was also submitted that Ext.B1 mehazar was prepared by the Assistant Engineer of the 1^st opposite party and that the findings in the site mehazar were brought to the notice of the complainant also.  Thus, he canvassed for the position that the issuance of the bill was perfectly legal and hence the Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted before us that the Forum below had appreciated all the facts and circumstances of the case and has passed the order which is only to be upheld.  He has canvassed for the position that the site mehazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer was not properly proved and that the mehazar was not a reliable document to support the case of the appellants.

7. On a perusal of the order and on going through the case records we find that the short question to be considered is whether the opposite parties are entitled to collect charges for 6 months only or they are entitled to realise charges for 12 months at twice the rate applicable to the respective tariff.  It is seen that the complainant has attacked the bill on this short ground and also that there was no misuse in the premises.  However it is seen that the complainant has not raised a contention that there was no trade union office in the building where the connection of Consumer No.2346 was given by the opposite parties.  The complainant has also submitted that even if the trade union office is there, the opposite parties are liable to charge only under tariff LT-I B.  But the opposite parties have submitted that if the premises are used for more than one purpose, the higher tariff under LT-VII A is applicable and the short assessment bill can be issued at 2 times the rate applicable for a period of 12 months.  The learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the fact that the tariff was revised with regard to Sec.126 with effect from 15/6/2007 and instead of 6 months it has been revised to 12 months at the rate of 2 times the rate applicable.  The said contention has not been challenged by the respondent.  The respondent’s case is only that Advocate’s office and trade union office can be under tariff I-B.  We are not inclined to accept the said contention of the respondent.  The KSEB (appellants) are empowered to fix the rate under the proper tariff for the energy supplied by them and consumed by the consumer.  We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with such powers of the KSEB.  It seems that the Forum below had not adverted to the contention of the opposite parties/appellants and has passed the order without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances.  We find that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is done so.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The order dated:30/05/2009 in CC.145/08 of CDRF, Kottayam is set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

 JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT

    VL.