CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KOTTAYAM
Present
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member
CC No. 118/11
Saturday the 24th day of May, 2014.
Petitioner : Sony George,
Vaithundathil House,
Punnathura PO,
Kottayam District.
(Adv.Jacob George)
Vs
Opposite parties : Kerala State Electricity Board,
Rptd by its Secretary,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
2) Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Kidangoor.
ORDER
Sri. Bose Augustine, President
Case of the complainant filed on 12-05-11 is as follows:
Complainant is a consumer of opposite parties as Consumer number 11479 of Kidangoor electrical section. The complainant allotted tariff is LT-IV. According to petitioner he was conducted business of manufacturing bricks as his source of livelihood and it is a seasonal business. According to the petitioner on 11-3-11 APTS had inspected the premises of the petitioner and prepared a mahazer and petitioner was compelled to sign the mahazer. The business of petitioner was a seasonal so manufacturing of bricks will be finished in the month of May. So on the basis of application of petitioner the connection was disconnected in the month of May 2010. According to petitioner on 4-8-10 petitioner got a permit to excavate sand from the property. And on 28-7-10 the connection was reconnected on the basis of petitioner’s request and petitioner was regularly paying the electricity charges LT-4 tariff rate. According to petitioner on 11-3-11 APTS conducted inspection without considering the facts, issued a penal bill for Rs.1,90,566/- under LT-VIIA tariff rate. And petitioner filed objection under Section 3 of Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003 stating that he had never misused the electricity and the electricity was reconnected only from August 2010 but the penal assessment was made for a period of one year from 2011. And opposite party modified the penal bill as to Rs.1,70,814. According to petitioner opposite parties had committed gross faults and mistake in issuing such a huge bill and the same is liable to be cancelled. According to petitioner the act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trades practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party the service connection of complainant is LT-IV tariff but during the time of inspection it was found that the supply was used only for the extraction and sale of sand which comes under LT-VIIA (Commercial) tariff. As per the regulation 50(9) of KSE Board terms and conditions of supply it is to be treated as unauthorized use of energy and shall be provisionally assessed under Section 126 of Electricity Act.
According to opposite parties the petitioner indulged in misuse of energy which was not authorized by opposite party. Petitioner was doing business of manufacturing bricks and the electric connection was reconnected on request of the petitioner. Opposite party alleges that petitioner excavated sand and sold, it without prior permission. Petitioner had not filed any application for change of tariff.
Points for considerations are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice?
- Relief and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of affidavits of both sides and Ext.A1 to A10 documents from the side of petitioner and Ext.B1 from the side of opposite party.
Point No.1
Opposite party admitted the business of the petitioner as manufacturing bricks. From Ext.B1 meter reading it can be seen that the electric connection of the petitioner’s premises was disconnected and reconnected as per the request of the petitioner. Ext.A2 is the copy of the reconnection application submitted to the opposite party by petitioner. From Ext.A2 it can be seen that the need for reconnection is shown for excavation of sand. Admittedly from Ext.A3 document petitioner had remitted the fee for reconnection. In our view it is the duty of the employees of opposite party to apply their mind and fix the tariff applicable for excavation for sand. In our view there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not fixing the correct tariff applicable to excavation of sand, as per the tariff order issued by the concerned authority. Even though, the issuance of Ext.A7 penal bill is illegal, the petitioner is liable to remit the electricity charges he consumed in LT VII A tariff. Point No. 1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is allowed. In the result
- Ext.A10 bill for Rs. 1,70,814/- dated 26-4-11 is cancelled.
- Opposite party has the liberty to issue fresh bill to the petitioner for the electrical energy actually consumed by the petitioner from 28-7-10 to 11-3-11 in LT VII A tariff.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.
Sri. Bose Augustine, President Sd/-
Smt. Renu.P. Gopalan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of the mahazar prepared by APTS dtd 11-3-11
Ext.A2-Copy of application dtd 28/7/10
Ext.A3-receipt dtd 28-7-10
Ext.A4-Bill dtd 01-02-11
Ext.A5-receipt dtd14-3-11
Ext.A6-Notice dtd 21-3-11
Ext.A7-Bill dtd 21-3-11
Ext.A8-Explalnation dtd 23-03-11
Ext.A9-Order 26-4-11
Ext.A10-Revised bill dtd 26-4-11
Documents of opposite party
Ext.B1-copy of the meter reading register
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
