State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Kerala State Electricity Board, vs P. Radhakrishnan, on 2 February, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/547 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/11/2010 in Case No. CC/09/569 of District Ernakulam) 1. The Secretary,KSEB Vydyuthi Bhavan,Pattom,Trivandrum Trivandrum Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. P.RadhaKrishnan The Director,Bharath Engineering Institute Madeckal Building,Arakuzha Road,Muvattupuzha,Ernakulam Ernakulam Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 547/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 2.02.2012
PRESENT:
SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. M/s. Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan,Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section No. 1,
Muvattupuzha. : APPELLANTS
(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs
P. Radhakrishnan, Director,
Bharanth Engineering Institute,
Madeckal Building, Arakuzha Road,
Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv. Tom Joseph)
JUDGMENT
SHRI S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is filed by the opposite parties who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated: 30.11.2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC No. 569/09 wherein and whereby they are directed to cancel Exts A1 to A3 bills and also to adjust the amount remitted by the complainant in the future bills. The Forum has also made the order in IA 504/2009 absolute.
2. The complainant had approached the Forum stating that he was conducting an X-ray technician training institute for earning his livelihood for self employment and that he had taken the electricity connection under the LT VI A category and that on 30.7.2009, he was served with a bill for Rs.17,915/- stating to be the difference in charges since the connection was to be charged under tariff LT VII A. It was submitted by him that he remitted a sum of Rs.9,177/- towards the bill and that on a future occasion he was given another bill for Rs.26,763/- stating that on the inspection conducted by the APTS of the opposite parties on 15.9.09, the complainant had unauthorizedly increased the connected load to 8 kw. The complainant had disputed the findings of the APTS and had also contended that he was not liable to pay the bill for Rs.17,915/- and the bill for Rs.26,763/-. Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant sought for directions to the opposite parties to withdraw the demands for Rs.17,915/- and Rs.26,763/- and also directions to refund the amount of Rs.9,177/- collected from the complainant.
3. In the version filed by the opposite parties, it was submitted that the complainant was running an institution for teaching welding and that the tariff applicable was under LT VII A and that the bill for Rs.17,915/- was issued towards the short assessment and also that the APTS of the opposite parties had conducted an inspection on 15.09.2009 wherein it was found that the complainant had unauthorizedly connected load of 8 Kw and hence the bills issued were perfectly justifiable. It was also submitted that there was no deficiency in service and the complainant was liable to pay the amounts covered under the bills.
4. The evidence consisted of the documents produced by the complainant as Exts. A1 to A5. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties vehemently argued before us that the Forum below had gone wrong in cancelling the bills since the bills were issued upon sustainable grounds. It was submitted by him that the complainant was given connection under LT VI A tariff and that since he was conducting a welding school, the tariff applicable was under LT VII A and there was nothing wrong in giving a short assessment bill for Rs.17,915/- for the period from 12/07 to 07/08. It was submitted that the complainant had remitted the sum of Rs.9,177/- towards the bill amount of Rs.17,915/-. The learned counsel invited our attention to Ext. A4 and submitted that there was surprise inspection by the APTS on 30.7.09 and unauthorized additional load of 8Kw was found out and since the complainant had exceeded the sanctioned load, the issuance of the bill was perfectly in accordance with the rules prevailing in the KSEB. He has also a case that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service and hence the order of the Forum below is only to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the order of the Forum below is perfectly sustainable and it is passed after proper discussion of the various facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted by him that the change of tariff from LT VI A to LT VII A is under challenge and according to the Honorable High Court of Kerala; categorizing self Financial Institutions as commercial cannot be upheld. It is also his case that his institution is a school and welding course was conducted and he has also a case that the APTS had prepared a report without properly inspecting the machineries connected in the establishment and the complainant is also entitled to get the benefits of the above Board Order of the KSEB on 30.7.2010. He has submitted that the Honorable High Court of Kerala in OP 17266 of 2002 (judgment dt:9.6.2006) has held that even when there is unauthorized additional load, the opposite parties are not entitled to collect penalty by way of proportionate energy charges and they are empowered to collect penal charges for the unauthorized additional load only. The learned counsel has also advanced the contention that the opposite parties have preferred this appeal without any cogent grounds.
8. On hearing both sides and also on perusing the records it is found that the complainant has a case that he is not liable to pay the bills issued by the opposite parties since the 1st bill for short assessment cannot be sustained as the tariff is under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has also a case that the 2nd bill for Rs.26,763/- is not liable to be paid by him as the bill issued was towards fixed charges and proportionate energy charges for the unauthorized additional load. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances it is found that the opposite parties have issued the bill for Rs.17,915/- towards the difference in the tariff ie short assessment since the tariff applicable to the complainant's institution was under LT VII A and the earlier bills were issued under LT VI A tariff. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would argue that the same is under change it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed the matter in favor of the appellants/opposite parties. It is also found that the complainant has remitted for Rs.9,177/- towards past payment in the said bill. In such circumstances, it is found that the bill issued for Rs.17,915/- is perfectly justifiable and the complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.8,738/- also. The opposite parties are not entitled to collect any interest on the said amount if the complainant pays the amount in two monthly equated installments on receipt of this order.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the bill for Rs. 26,763/- is also liable to be paid by the complainant. He has relied on Ext. A4, the copy of the site mahazar produced by the complainant himself though it is found that the opposite parties have not substantiated their case of additional load by examining the officials who conducted the inspection. It is found that the complainant himself has admitted that he had some additional load though the quantum of additional load is disputed by him. He has also relied on the BO dated 30.7.2010 wherein the Board has decided penalties for unauthorized load. However, the decision of the Honorable High Court as referred above has to be viewed in favor of the complainant. The opposite parties had issued the bill for Rs.26,763/- towards the additional load which contains the charges for proportionate energy charges also. Considering the spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court (cited Supra) the opposite parties are entitled to collect penalty towards fixed charges only for the unauthorized additional load and hence while upholding the cancellation of Ext. A3 bill it is held that the opposite parties are entitled to collect the penal charges towards the fixed charges for the unauthorized additional load contained in Ext. A4 site Mahazar.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part with the above modifications. Thereby the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.8,738/- towards the balance of Ext. A1 bill and the appellants/opposite parties can realize the penal charges for the unauthorized additional load contained in Ext A4 site mahazar. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
The office is directed to return the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER DA [ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER