State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Secretary vs Lija Varghese on 23 April, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/13/188 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/10/2012 in Case No. cc/11/519 of District Ernakulam) 1. The Secretary, KSEB Pattom ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Lijo Varghese Moovattupuzha ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.188/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 23/04/2014
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.519/2011 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam dated, 31/07/2012)
PRESENT:
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattam,
Thiruvananthapuram-690 004.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board
Major Section-1,
Muvattupuzha-686 601.
(By Adv: B. Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs
RESPONDENTS:
Lija Varghese,
M/s. IRC Computer Centre,
Irimpayil Complex,
Muvattupuzha-686 661.
(By Adv: Tom Joseph)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Opposite parties are the appellants who preferred this appeal against the Order passed in C.C.No.519/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The impugned Order of the Forum Below is to cancel the bill issued by the opposite parties.
2. The allegation of the complainant is that he was served with a penal bill for Rs.41,462/- dated 14/09/2011 towards un-authorised connected load of 6 kw. The penal bill includes Rs.14,400/- towards penal fixed charge and Rs.27,062/- towards penal current charges. The complainant was conducting a computer coaching centre for his livelihood and the electric connection was under LTVIIA tariff. The complainant was having total connected load of 4 kw as against 7 kw assessed by the opposite party. It is stated in the complaint that UPS having connected load of 2.5 kw was installed on 03/06/2011. The additional load was regularized in 06/11 by collecting penal charges. The complainant paid Rs.4,618/- in July 2011 and Rs.4,073/- in August 2011 for unauthorized extension of connected load. The complainant had already paid the electricity consumed based on the meter reading during this period. Even after payment of penal current charges the opposite parties issued demand notice for Rs.41,462/-. Since the complainant had already paid Rs.8,691/- towards penal charges the complainant is not at all liable to pay the penal bill issued on 14/09/2011, hence filed this complaint.
3. The opposite parties filed version contending that the bill amounting Rs.41,462/- was issued as per the direction of the Office of the Principal Accountant General, Indian Audit and Accounts Department. An inspection conducted on 03/06/2011 the Audit Officer noticed the total load of 5580 watts. As per clause 50(5) and (6) of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of supply Act, the unauthorized additional load shall be penalized at equal two times the tariff applicable to the relevant category upto one year. It is contented in the version that the back assessment is from 6/10 to 4/11. The complainant regularized the connected load on 24/08/2011 and increased connected load to 4220 watts after the inspection. The back assessment amount was issued as per the Accountant General's Report and the complainant is liable to pay the amount and the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. No oral evidence adduced by parties. Exbts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant, no documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties.
5. The arguments putforth by the counsel for the appellant is that the demand notice was issued for a period from 6/10 to 4/11. On inspection conducted by Audit Department on 03/06/2011 a total load of 5500 watts was noticed. The connection was regularized on 24/08/2011 by increasing the load to 4220 watts. It is also submitted that the penal bills from 04/11 to 8/11 amounting to Rs.11091 were remitted before regularizing the connected load to 4220 watts. It is argued that as per Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 50(5) and (6) of KSEB terms and conditions of supply, 2005, the appellant is authorized to issue penal bills for unauthorized connected load. It is admitted that the respondent remitted bill for Rs.8,691/- towards penal charges and the respondent is due to pay Rs.41,462/- as penal charges for the period from 6/10 to 4/11. Hence the bill issued is to be paid by the respondent. The respondent regularized the connected load only on 24/08/2011 and the Order of Forum Below is to set-aside.
6. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the complainant installed the UPS on 03/06/2011 evidenced by Exbt. A3. The complainant was issued with a bill for Rs.11,864/- dated 22/06/2011 and he had paid penal charges for unauthorized extension of connected load. The amount was remitted by the respondent. The complainant was paying the electricity charges consumed by him on the basis of meter reading. He had already paid the additional energy charges and fixed charges for the period till 08/2011. Thereafter the respondent issued with a demand notice for Rs.41,462/- based on the alleged inspection of the Audit Department of the Accountant General. The complainant was paying the energy charges and the fixed charges regularly and he was issued with the penal bill for the additional load also. It is clear from evidence that the complainant installed the UPS only on 03/06/2011 and he had already paid the penal charges and energy charges for a period till regularization on 08/2011. The statutory provision is to pay the penal fixed charges as well as penal energy charges. He had already paid both these charges till 08/2011. He was issued with the bill from 06/2010 to 04/2011 which is highly irrelevant as there is no meter recording nor documents produced by the appellant in evidence. Hence the respondent is not liable to pay any bill on the basis of unauthorized connection.
7. We have heard both the parties in detail and gone through the records. We find that the respondent installed the UPS only on 03/06/2011 and the alleged inspection conducted by the Audit Department was also on 03/06/2011. It is pertinent to point out that the respondent already paid the additional charges and penal charges during the period till 08/2011. Based on the Audit Department inspection a demand notice issued to a prior date from 06/10 to 4/11. It is clear from documents that the respondent installed the UPS only on 03/06/2011. Nothing is brought out in evidence to show that there had any increase in the meter reading of the respondent. In the absence of evidence adduced by the appellant the demand notice issued prior to the installation of the UPS, the back assessment does not warrant as per Section 126(5) of the Electricity Act 2003. Hence the respondent is not liable to pay the bill issued on 14/09/2011.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the Order passed by the Forum Below.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below along with LCR.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.188/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 23/04/2014
Sa.
[ SMT.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER
[ SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS] MEMBER