ORDER

Mrs. Valsalasarangadharan, Member - This appeal is preferred from the order dated 22.1.2009 in CC.34/07 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellants as opposite parties whereby the Forum below cancelled the disputed bill and directed the opposite parties to adjust the said amount in future bills.

2. The case of the complainant is that he is a commercial consumer of the opposite parties and was paying the charges as per the tariff fixed. Complainant has once used the electric connection from the shop by way of extension to his dwelling house on experimental basis and on 6.2.2007. APTS detected the unauthorized use of electricity and a penal bill for Rs. 13,500 was issued to him. According to the complainant it is issued without complying the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003. In order to avoid disconnection he remitted the amount in 2 instalments. According to the complainant, the opposite parties are entitled to charge only 1 times the tariff applicable for domestic connection. Hence he filed complaint before the Forum.

3. The opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant was given electric connection to his shop building under commercial tariff VII B. The complainant subsequently constructed the dwelling house in connection with this commercial shop and applied for electric connection to his house and was waiting for electric connection under domestic tariff for a connected load of 1580 watts. On the suspicion of misuse of energy a surprise site inspection was conducted by the opposite parties and detected the unauthorized use of energy. On further inspection, it was found that the power meter connection at the shop was faulty and it was not according to the consumption. A site mahazer was prepared but the complainant's son refused to sign the mahazer. After the inspection a penal bill for Rs. 13,500 was issued and this was as per rules and regulations of KSEB and there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/opposite parties. The learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below in directing the opposite parties to cancel the impugned bill for Rs. 13,500 and adjust the amount towards the future bills of the complainant/respondent is not sustainable either in law or in facts. He has submitted before us that the impugned bill was issued consequent to the detection of unauthorized use of energy by the APTS of the opposite parties. The learned Counsel submitted before us that the complainant himself has admitted that he had taken connection from the shop by way of extension to his dwelling house though it is argued that it was on an experimental basis. Relying on Ext. B1, site mahazer the learned Counsel invited our attention to the fact that the son of the complainant was convinced of the inspection and the preparation of the site mahazer. Though it can be argued by the complainant that he had remitted the cash deposit for obtaining connection to the residence, he was not expected to connect the service line without the permission of the Board. Thus, advancing the contention that the issuance of the bill was perfectly in accordance with the rules and regulations of KSEB he submitted before us that appeal is to be allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

5. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and on a perusal of the records, we find that a bill for Rs. 13,500 had been admittedly issued by the appellants. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the said bill was issued consequent to the detection of un-authorized use of electrical energy. It is also seen that a site mahazer was prepared which was marked as Ext. B1. It is to be noted that as soon as the bill was issued the complainant has requested for instalment facilities. On a per